What we know

https://twitter.com/hashtag/distractinglysexy?src=hash

From NPR

If you're catching up, British scientist Tim Hunt, 72, made the remarks at an international conference in South Korea, where he reportedly said, "You fall in love with them [women], they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry." On Wednesday, Hunt apologized--to an extent--and resigned his honorary professorship at University College London.

A different report

In 2001, Tim Hunt won a share of a Nobel Prize. In 2006, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. But in 2015, he's being widely criticized for his recent remarks about women in science, including: "when you criticize them, they cry."

Hunt, a biochemist, made that and other comments during a speech this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists that's being held in South Korea this week. He was quoted in a tweet that's since been shared hundreds of times, asking the audience to "let me tell you about my trouble with girls."

"Three things happen when they are in the lab," Hunt said, according to conference attendee Connie St. Louis, who is both a scientist and journalist. "You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry."

Hunt, 72, went on to say that he doesn't want to get in the way of women in science — but that he favors the idea of single-sex labs. The scientist confirmed today that his words had been accurately reported, and he apologized for offending people, even as he insisted that the presence of women in labs is "disruptive."

A "scientist" mayor speaks

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, weighed in on Hunt's remark and the now mounting alluvion, or is it more accurately a conflagration? He "applied science" to what Hunt had said and showed(?) that women do cry more often than men. Johnson also said that Hunt "was giving a light-hearted, off-the-cuff speech to some scientific journalists." Was Hunt making known a scientific finding for the science journalists? (Stretch.)

What we don't know

Take one reporter's version and lightly compare with another's (to wit, the quotations and summary above). The context for the remark or remarks is unclear. We thus know nothing. We weren't there, and it appears neither were a lot of "politically-correct-speech police" who have stirred the pot--there is no end to the metaphors we can command to describe this. . . .

What we do

Finally, we know something and it's all we need to know. A person has claimed, in jest or seriously, he has trouble with girls/women. No fuss there. His was an I-statement. And so what?

One fuss should be about getting the story straight. What was the context? What did he say? How did he say it? The next fuss should be that if the perpetrator actually harms others by his words or deeds, most assuredly contain him. But if he merely alarms and not harms, there need be no fuss at all.

Is alarm necessary in this case? Oh, the sins we commit by saying something about ourselves and what we think and feel. God forgive us for even having human traits.

Thank god, oops, God, for humor (see #distractinglysexy). Humor is the best fuss in this and other things or people we can make fun of.