A Youtube comment:

He spends 0:40 asking her the first question. He continues talking when she tries to speak once.

She talks for 0:30

He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55

She talks for 1:00 answering this question

He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her speak please" is shouted (1:05:40).

It's clear that he was quite excited about the ideas and some of the ways he wanted to explain them and examples he wanted to give. It's not clear that there was no subconscious bias on his part in the way he went about it.

>He spends 0:40 asking her the first question. He continues talking when she tries to speak once.

>She talks for 0:30

>He redirects her from her answer and tries to clarify what he wants to know for 0:55

>She talks for 1:00 answering this question

> He begins clarifying/providing an example of what she is saying for 0:20, continuing to talk when she tries to speak once. It is during this interruption that "let her speak please" is shouted (1:05:40).

This makes it sound like he only interrupts her twice, while my count is up to eight at this point. He's already interrupted her mid-speach three times, and she's trying to get back air time five times after 1:03:25 when he's interrupted her.

And it's the same after 1:05:25 when he interrupts her yet again.

> It's clear that he was quite excited about the ideas and some of the ways he wanted to explain them and examples he wanted to give. It's not clear that there was no subconscious bias on his part in the way he went about it.

I honestly don't think it's nefarious, but what I do think is fairly blatant is that it's a case of speaking for the woman, which is text book sexism. If I can read more between the lines than perhaps is there, I think he believes he's doing her a favor. While clearly wrong, I think this is a/the main component of sexism. Which could also explain people (men) not seeing it as a problem because it's habitual and not stemming from ill-will.

Twice it happens that he is asking a ridiculously long question, she starts to break in but he continues talking. Whom are you counting as the interruptor here? She is the one formally interrupting, but he should cede because his job is to make her talk.

If you count him as "interrupting" merely because he's doing the wrong thing in the context, then interruption-count is no longer the objective measure that it was introduced as. (More generally, it seems difficult to use interruption-count in a context like this where the two interlocutors are not intended to be in a symmetrical relationship to each other.)

I count him as the interruptor simply because he started each "long question" through an interruption without allowing her to change course to accomodate.

You can see the contrast in behavior to all other panelists in the first hour. If he and any of the male panelists end up talking at the same time he always concedes immediately.

> I do think is fairly blatant is that it's a case of speaking for the woman, which is text book sexism.

Devil's advocate... a third party yelling "let her speak" is also speaking for the woman. Dr. Hubeny would not be where she is today if she lacked the ability to interject her own thoughts.

Contrast this to Holt's behavior for the rest of the video when interacting with the men on the panel and it is quite clear that his bias was not subconscious, but rather that he is just an asshole.

I have not watched the full video, are you saying he was an ass to everyone, or he only acted that way to her, and thus any sexism was not subconscious but intended?