It appears that a few gentle readers are concerned that the “for gentleman scientists” bit of our every so pithy tagline implies that ladies are not welcome – that we might, indeed, be sexist pig dogs. Let’s lay this one to rest, forthwith. While our porcine and canine qualities, not to mention their synergistic effects on one another, are certainly open for debate, our sexism is not.
We can defend our word choice on several fronts.
There is the aesthetic. The weight of words required to accommodate the entire spectrum of gender identities would turn the “tag-line” into a “tag-paragraph”, and we still leave someone out.
There is the empirical. Read the writing. You do not have to agree with us. We don’t always agree with us. But, you will be hard put to argue that we support anything other than total equality for all people.
There is the history of science. “Gentleman scientist” has always referred to a scientist who pursues their research as a hobby and through independent means, rather than external funds (e.g., government grants). It describes a type of scientist, not a gender of scientist. At the time the term came into use (and today), this type happened to be almost entirely male. At the time the term came into use, most types of anything that were any fun to be happened to be almost entirely male. English has a lot of vocabulary baggage. Indeed, at that time, “gentleman” indicated the socio-economic standing (independent means, but not nobility) to a far greater degree than sex or good manners.
A “gentleman scientist” takes risks and pursues science as a passion, not just as a profession. No matter where you fall on the gender spectrum, if that sounds like you, you are in the right place.
The Finch and Pea 
Language is culture and it reflects the values, and supports the hegemony, of those who are at the top. No one can deny that the racist, sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic and religious bigotry of the past holds on in language long after such attitudes are considered unacceptable.
And yet, language is culture and the vestiges of a by-gone era continue the suffering of those who experienced greater suffering in the past. Does anyone ignore a recent wound while thinking about a greater wound received previously?
The writer would argue that small wounds done by language today should be ignored because the wounds were so large in the past. Clearly he is not of the class being wounded.
Editor’s note: Due to technical difficulty with posting this comment initially, James re-submitted a similar comment. Both comments came through. I have edited the comments together, with no change in wording, to present the argument as clearly and concisely as was originally intended.
You raise very good and important points. Points we have spent a lot of time talking about, some of which is reflected in the length of this reply.
Unfortunately, our culture has only left us this one, admittedly non-ideal, phrase to describe this type of individual. The term is question is an anachronism. Actual “gentleman scientists” are very rare. Government funding has generally made them unnecessary or uncompetitive. Those that do exist are generally labeled as “quacks”, as good science should be able to get government funding. The phrase itself currently carries almost no meaning to the culture as a whole. Any effort to invent a new, readily understandable phrase would still have to reference our current culture, which still carries the latent misogyny you so rightly point out.
If you choose to extract meaning de novo by breaking down the phrase, rather than (a) assuming we are being flip or (b) looking up the term or (c) not caring, you might worry. Sadly, in our culture today, the public perception of both “gentleman” and “scientist” are older, white males. And, frankly, we hope this site is not just for professional scientists.
Language is a part of culture (indeed many non-verbal animals have cultures). While a few words in a culture’s vocabulary may truly reflect its current attitudes and reinforce biases, most are inherited accidents of history. For example, the vast majority of differences between American English and British English reflect a few hundred years of semi-independent, random change. Very few of the differences reflect fundamental cultural differences.
The language reflects our history, and our cultural history is an ugly one of racism and misogyny. We may do well to remember that the accidents of our culture’s history are the accidents of such a culture. Abandoning any language that recalls that history does not leave us with much language to use, especially of the descriptive variety.
Descriptive language is a double-edged sword. The variety of language required to speak movingly about the beauty in the world also allows people to say horrific and polarizing things. The same expanse of vocabulary necessary to describe the experience of a rose in summertime also allows us to describe other people as sub-human. Extremists can inflame crowds, in part, because they are willing to exploit the range of language more fully than considerate people. There is a danger that worrying too much about offending no one or taking a stand against the sins of our culture (past and present) will rob us of the power to say things in a moving and passionate way.
Finally, many organizations that explicitly use very sanitized vocabulary remain lack diversity, both through intent and circumstance. External vocabulary can be a very poor predictor of actual group attitudes. Based on your very third person-y description of “the writer” (you may call me Josh), it would seem that you may not be familiar with our actual attitudes here, which are big fans of female equality here or here or here.
Now, were we to say “gentlemen of science”, that would be a different story. . .
I don’t actually have a horse in this race. I just wanted to throw out the phrase “amateur scientists.” I think I know why you wouldn’t want to use it. But it does have the advantage of semantically and etymologically — if not historically within the specific subculture of science — of expressing both nonprofessional and passionate (it comes from the Latin for love). Carry on men. 🙂
We considered “amateur scientists”, but the problem is that we are not “amateurs”. A reasonable proportion of our readers are professionals. Very tricky to find a coherent way to include both.
Key thing is, that we want to make sure everyone knows that we have actually spent a lot of time worrying about these issues.