LJ,
Disagree. The dictionary definition of ‘soldier’ has nothing to do with ‘closing with and killing the enemy’: the word quite literally means ‘one who serves in an army’. The definition of ‘sailor’ is indeed related to seafaring, but can you point to more than a very slack handful of RN roles where there is absolutely no chance ever of being ordered to serve afloat, even if only on attachment? Both of those words are gender-neutral, have centuries’ worth of common usage behind them, and are readily understood by everyone. The idea that they should be dropped just because the RAF a) thinks it needs to, and b) can’t, come up with a better alternative to ‘airmen and airwomen’ leaves me absolutely stone cold, I’m afraid, and I’m not even a soldier or a sailor.
I’m of the view that if there is no existing word that works for the RAF - ‘aviator‘ is just wrong, especially in a service where (like it or not) the long term future will see a greater proportion of uninhabited platforms - then a new ‘made up’ word should be created. But ‘airmen and airwomen’ is just fine by me. It means that anyone saying it automatically spends more time talking about the Air Force than the other services
and it even subtly advertises the fact that all roles are open to women.