but the principle being discussed is precisely that our vision system shouldn't be used as a reference, shouldn't those who try to avoid "the human bias" then leave the "green" stars alone?
We have two different items here. They may seem related but they are not.
When we say that the human vision system is not suitable as a reference for color calibration of representations of the deep sky, we refer to using solar type stars as white references with the purpose of achieving "real color". We say that such thing is an illusion, for the reasons that we have explained in this thread and others. Actually, the problem is not with G2V. One could use any spectral type as white and our objections would be the same. We have described other methods, better in our opinion, that do not consider (or, to be more precise, try to avoid considering) any particular spectral type as a white reference.
The other item is how we represent different wavelengths in our images. This is a completely arbitrary decision. Mapping wavelengths to the usual red-green-blue sequence is just one possibility. For example, in narrowband imaging, we often represent different emissions with arbitrary color palettes, often completely unrelated to their position on the spectrum, in terms of the human vision. The Hubble palette is a palmary example. As another example, one could perform a color calibration with Vicent's galaxy method and then remap colors by swapping red and green, or red and blue, etc. Why not, if for a given image that remapping achieves a better visual separation of structures, or any other improvement that could be desirable for documentary or communication purposes? Or just because the author thinks the image has more aesthetic value in that way. As long as coherent and well-founded criteria are used, we have no problems with that things.
