Funny little story about a woman who whined on Twitter about how her male peers don't take her seriously as a scientist by using her title of "Doctor" in replying to emails whereas the women did.

https://bethanybrookshire.com/i-went-viral-i-was-wrong/

What struck me as funny is that whenever I see a story like this by a so-called woman scientist my first thought is always "if you were any good as a scientist you'd know that your anecdote doesn't constitute data" or possibly "maybe if you could do math you'd get more respect from your peers" depending on the exact context. However in this case it seems the woman really did manage to figure out for herself there was a problem the day after she tweeted.

But as I feinted and parried with the replies, I began to squirm. I gave an anecdote. But I have a Ph.D. in science and one of the first things we learn is that our anecdotes aren’t data. And I HAD the data. It was sitting right there in my inbox. I decided I had to know.

I mean no your personal correspondence still isn't really data, and you can't gather data first and then after the fact decide which emails to count in your "study".... but OK it's better than simply stating from memory "I know X is true". So she looked at the data from her personal email correspondence and found twice as many male peers called her doctor than female peers."

I guess she deserves some credit for telling people she was 100% wrong except then she starts to walk it back in her retraction article:

I was careless. My friends and colleagues RT’d it. They identified with it. Some friends defended me against people questioning me about my experience, which may be the worst thing of all. I feel like I betrayed them in some small way. We all identified with something because it sounded like our reality. In many cases, it may well be reality.

So she identifies women as the victim of her false tweet when she was using it to attack men. Then she doubles down with no evidence at all and says oh but really we know that this is true even if my specific claim was false. No evidence for that either of course. So by the end of the article she's proudly patting herself on the back for retracting her original claims, while doubling down on them.