This is still the same confusion. Sophie did exist, she just wasn’t called Sophie. I believe OP is complaining about the minor role that (then) Roger has in the movie.

▲

quantummagic 3 days ago | parent [-]

There is no confusion. The name Sophie Wilsion literally did not exist at the time the events transpired. So it makes sense that a documentary, set at that time, would not reference it.

Quoting the OP:

"Notably, no mention of Sophie Wilson"

The OP's question was literally asking about why the name Sophie Wilson was not mentioned or given proper credit for their contribution. Please stop twisting it to make it seem like there has been some transgression or slight, that simply does not exist.

	▲	foldr 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You’re quoting what they said about the article, not what they said about Micro Men. If you thought the OP’s first paragraph was about Micro Men then maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I am not accusing anyone of any transgressions. I think you’ve just misinterpreted the OP’s comment as being about gender (as they’ve now confirmed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44939643)
	▲	wizzwizz4 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You've misunderstood the OP's words. … sigh Time to point at the dictionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mention#Verb sense 1: > To make a short reference to something. Sense 2 (the sense you were thinking about) is a specialised sense used in "philosophy, linguistics", and even then the context makes it clear when this sense is meant. 'No mention of "Sophie Wilson"' might conceivably be referring to the name, but 'No mention of Sophie Wilson' refers to the person. Historical retrospectives show systematic erasure of trans women's contributions to STEM. (Certainly this happens in other fields, too, but I haven't studied them enough to notice the pattern.) This is worth talking about, if it has happened here, and does not need to be derailed by a pointless semantics argument.