Soldiers, Sailors and ...?

[Red Line Entry]

So a lot of discussion ongoing about finding a collective noun to equate to soldiers and sailors. I agree that ‘officers, airmen and airwomen’ is somewhat clunky but what to use instead?

‘Aviator’ seems the favourite at the moment, but before you all start quoting dictionaries, you do have to then accept an interpretation of the word that is:

a. Gender neutral by discounting the word aviatrix (in the same way the term actor now applies to women rather than actress).

b. Applicable to all those involved in the business of aviation (ie in the RAF), rather than just those who actually fly.

Or is there a better term?


The second issue revolves about the rank of Aircraftman (and LAC and SAC) which officially applies to women too - I believe their rank is not, bizarrely Aircraftwoman. It’s the only rank we have that is gendered, so how about changing that too, in the same way that the RN moved away from Able Seaman to Able Rate. One proposal is to change the term to ‘Specialist’ (or for the techies, ‘Technician’)

Now this is Pprune, so I fully expect the usual suspects to tell me that this is Political Correctness gone mad and how in the 80’s even the women were real men, but FWIW, my view is that it is both an easy thing to change and something that we ought to do. The test to me is that, as a bloke, would you want your rank to be ‘Aircraftwoman’?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

So a lot of discussion ongoing about finding a collective noun to equate to soldiers and sailors. I agree that ‘officers, airmen and airwomen’ is somewhat clunky but what to use instead?

‘Aviator’ seems the favourite at the moment, but before you all start quoting dictionaries, you do have to then accept an interpretation of the word that is:

a. Gender neutral by discounting the word aviatrix (in the same way the term actor now applies to women rather than actress).

b. Applicable to all those involved in the business of aviation (ie in the RAF), rather than just those who actually fly.

Or is there a better term?


The second issue revolves about the rank of Aircraftman (and LAC and SAC) which officially applies to women too - I believe their rank is not, bizarrely Aircraftwoman. It’s the only rank we have that is gendered, so how about changing that too, in the same way that the RN moved away from Able Seaman to Able Rate. One proposal is to change the term to ‘Specialist’ (or for the techies, ‘Technician’)

Now this is Pprune, so I fully expect the usual suspects to tell me that this is Political Correctness gone mad and how in the 80’s even the women were real men, but FWIW, my view is that it is both an easy thing to change and something that we ought to do. The test to me is that, as a bloke, would you want your rank to be ‘Aircraftwoman’?

Personally I think "aircraft specialist" is the best bet. Aviator implies too heavily in modern English that one flies.

[trim it out]

... civilians.

[NutLoose]

Soldiers, Sailors and Airforce. It describes exactly whats on the tin.

You could then retain the rank structure as well Leading Airforce Colleague, Senior Airforce Colleague etc

Soldiers, Sailors and Aeronauts

Soldiers Sailors and a Higher Force..

[NutLoose]

The second issue revolves about the rank of Aircraftman (and LAC and SAC) which officially applies to women too - I believe their rank is not, bizarrely Aircraftwoman. It’s the only rank we have that is gendered, so how about changing that too, in the same way that the RN moved away from Able Seaman to Able Rate. One proposal is to change the term to ‘Specialist’ (or for the techies, ‘Technician’)

They used to be, but they were binned with the WRAF, but then knowing the RAF and all their Gender cr*p they seem to foist upon themselves, you would need several variants these days.

[ORAC]

The second issue revolves about the rank of Aircraftman (and LAC and SAC) which officially applies to women too - I believe their rank is not, bizarrely Aircraftwoman
The term man is not gender specific - “What a piece of work is man!” In Hamlet applies equally, as does mankind and manslaughter.

I always thought the trend to use terms such as chairperson was manifestly silly, as with attempts to eliminate the use of term as a prefix or suffix b6 those ignorant of the etymology.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/man

"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female).

[Martin the Martian]

Aeronaut is a good one.

Or perhaps we could bin all of them and refer to everyone collectively with that horrible Americanism 'Warfighter'.:yuk:

[MG]

The RCAF now use Aviator. I think it works and I can’t think of any other options that aren’t clumsy. Yes, you’d have to apply your assumptions but the outside world isn’t going to care, nor are those joining after any change of title.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

The term man is not gender specific - “What a piece of work is man!” In Hamlet applies equally, as does mankind and manslaughter.

I always thought the trend to use terms such as chairperson was manifestly silly, as with attempts to eliminate the use of term as a prefix or suffix b6 those ignorant of the etymology.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/man

"a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" [Century Dictionary], Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female).


Going out on a limb ORAC, I'd guess that you, like I, are male. I can assure that as far as a significant number of females are concerned, "man" is very gender specific and they do not wish to be described as such. Whilst males might not see the issue, it doesn't mean there is one.

In this case an issue exists that does everything from gently rubbing someone up the wrong way that they won't feel the need to say anything about, all the way to an issue big enough to stop people from joining. Indeed there are some women who genuinely don't give a crap, but that doesn't mean the organisation shouldn't change to bring the rest on board. Especially when that change costs literally nothing, why would one not?

[charliegolf]

Soldiers, sailors and 'betters'. If adopted, Rocks will have to be 'soldiers', obvs!:ok:

It should be 'airmen' IMO. It's utilitarian, it will do fine.

[downsizer]

New no2's to come as well....

[ORAC]

Going out on a limb ORAC, I'd guess that you, like I, are male.
In which case you are mistaken.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

In which case you are mistaken.
Legitimate, care to comment on the rest?

[BEagle]

'Airman, plural Airmen'.

'As in Man, plural Men' and 'Woman, plural Women' before anyone bangs the gender or LGB-GT drum....

Surprised our fishy friends haven't suggested 'Crabs'....

[Specaircrew]

Surely it should be Air'they' to avoid offending all those poor angst ridden souls who can't 'identify' with any gender at all? ;-)

[spitfirek5054]

The Military,it covers everything

[ORAC]

Legitimate, care to comment on the rest?
I thought I did.

Even during the period when the WRAF was a separate service and had separate officer ranks - Section Officer etc - the names of the other ranks were the same as in the RAF and non-gender specific.

If the need is just to assuage perceived rather than actual slights or injustices to aid recruitment, then where does one draw the line? There will always be those who wish to feel offended.

[NutLoose]

Soldiers, Sailors and Evolution.... Just to show how far we have moved on.

Soldiers, Sailors and Xboxers...... The future of Aviation..

Soldiers, Sailors and Airwarriors

[Archimedes]

Aviator means someone who flies, as a pilot. It's been the dictionary for longer than the RAF has existed. 'Specialist' doesn't work as the collective noun as it isn't exclusive to the air force, or even air power. 'Leading Specialist' and 'Senior Specialist' (but not Senior Air Specialist because of the abbreviation...) might work for ranks, but not the collective term.

While an abuse of the original etymology behind its creation, 'Ardian' might work, albeit it was originally proposed for officer ranks in the list which was drawn up when the Admiralty (and to a lesser extent the War Office) objected to the use of their ranks for the new service, but which wasn't implemented.

It is gender neutral, has some heritage and tradition behind it, although it is, of course, obscure and as the word (a combination of two Gaellic words) loosely means 'Chief Bird', it is clearly aviation-related, but doesn't suggest one who flies an aircraft. And using the 'primary provider of the UK's air power' mantra which was fashionable a few years ago, it fits with that, too. Finally, humans are higher in the pecking order (sorry....) than birds when it comes to the food chain, so 'chief bird' might work, just about, in that sense as well.

[ORAC]

If you’re getting silly call them collectively Angels (ranks Cherubim, Seraphim etc) with NCOs obviously being Archangels......

[charliegolf]

For inclusivity, what about, 'airthey'? Does it not cover all 64 genders?

CG

[Barksdale Boy]

I always thought civilians aviated and we flew.

[ORAC]

Can’t use aviators because there are aviators and aviatrix....

[ORAC]

You could just refer to crew - as in aircrew, ground crew, supernumerary crew etc.

It has a suitable naval ring - “the officers and crew prepared for battle”.

[Timelord]

Soldiers, Sailors and Air People. Leading Air Person, Senior Air Person etc ?.

[Herod]

NCOs obviously being Archangels. And the SWO?

[ORAC]

The RAF obviously is remiss and has to adjust to modern culture and catch up with the times and vernacular.....

https://youtu.be/3GABT_l6VF0

[old,not bold]

My mother married an RAF Pilot, and from that day on my maternal grandfather invariably referred to the British air force as "that rabble".

I offer this as the very obvious collective noun that the OP is looking for.

[Wyntor]

What about "soldiers, sailors and woke"

[Hot 'n' High]

....... Surprised our fishy friends haven't suggested 'Crabs'....

That, dear BEags, is coz we Navy types have been using that phrase routinely (and most effectively) to refer to anyone in the RAF for, well, probably since the RAF was dreamed up out of the RNAS, so there is really no need for any further discussion. ;)

On that basis, we rather fail to see the point of this Thread.......... :ok: Toodle pip! H 'n' H

[NutLoose]

You could just refer to crew - as in aircrew, ground crew, supernumerary crew etc.

It has a suitable naval ring - “the officers and crew prepared for battle”.

It has a suitable RAF ring -"The crew prepared to send the the officers to battle. "

[ORAC]

And the SWO?
No change, obviously - GCMG...

[NutLoose]

Soldiers, Sailors and Guardians of the Atmosphere has a nice ring to it... ;) we can move onto the Galaxy in a few light years...

[SLXOwft]

Ah, the joys of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism - in other parts of the world feminists campaign for feminine titles to avoid being obscured by the masculine ones. In France there was a drawn out debate was whether female doctors should be la docteure or la doctoresse earlier it was common to use la docteur. Being a grumpy, older, ex-dark blue, white male I should probably exclude myself from this debate.

However: not wanting to disappoint BEagle and very much in jest...

Army - Solidier derives ultimately from the latin solidus (aka shilling) referring to their pay
Navy - Sailor derives from sailer i.e. someone or thing that sails
So,
Airforce - my ideas are Geographer - someone who uses maps to their own service's advantage, Boaster - someone who celebrates their own achievements, PPensioner - someone who uses PPrune to discuss pension schemes and PVR... other suggestions welcome.

[Lima Juliet]

Soldiers, Sailors and Airforce. It describes exactly whats on the tin..

Ding! Ding! Nutty wins... :ok:

[Cyberhacker]

I can assure that as far as a significant number of females are concerned, "man" is very gender specific and they do not wish to be described as such.
If man as a suffix to crafts or midship is non-PC, then surely male as a suffix to fe is equally inappropriate? Perhaps even worse?

[Easy Street]

Is it really too much of a mouthful to say “airmen and airwomen”? It’s only two syllables longer than the awful ‘aviators’.

[NutLoose]

So a lot of discussion ongoing about finding a collective noun to equate to soldiers and sailors. I agree that ‘officers, airmen and airwomen’ is somewhat clunky but what to use instead?

‘Aviator’ seems the favourite at the moment, but before you all start quoting dictionaries, you do have to then accept an interpretation of the word that is:

a. Gender neutral by discounting the word aviatrix (in the same way the term actor now applies to women rather than actress).

b. Applicable to all those involved in the business of aviation (ie in the RAF), rather than just those who actually fly.

Or is there a better term?


The second issue revolves about the rank of Aircraftman (and LAC and SAC) which officially applies to women too - I believe their rank is not, bizarrely Aircraftwoman. It’s the only rank we have that is gendered, so how about changing that too, in the same way that the RN moved away from Able Seaman to Able Rate. One proposal is to change the term to ‘Specialist’ (or for the techies, ‘Technician’)

Now this is Pprune, so I fully expect the usual suspects to tell me that this is Political Correctness gone mad and how in the 80’s even the women were real men, but FWIW, my view is that it is both an easy thing to change and something that we ought to do. The test to me is that, as a bloke, would you want your rank to be ‘Aircraftwoman’?

My question is are they actually looking at this? With shrinking budgets, And the country with Covid in debt up to the eyeballs. If there is a serious attempt to rename our service personnel you would be a fool to imagine it does not come without a cost. The simple and unfashionable reasoning behind changing Junior Tech to SAC Tech required new rank tabs producing, all the rank posters redoing, all paperwork relating to ranks replacing and the list goes on, Pensions, pay etc, one would like to know how much that exercise cost and for what benefit? The current system has been in place for decades, why change it now?

[ExAscoteer2]

probably since the RAF was dreamed up out of the RNAS, so there is really no need for any further discussion. ;)


Of course, prior to 1914 the RNAS was the Naval Wing of the RFC. := ;)

[Herod]

No change, obviously - GCMG...

OK ORAC; can't argue with that.

[pr00ne]

"My question is are they actually looking at this? With shrinking budgets, And the country with Covid in debt up to the eyeballs. If there is a serious attempt to rename our service personnel you would be a fool to imagine it does not come without a cost. The simple and unfashionable reasoning behind changing Junior Tech to SAC Tech required new rank tabs producing, all the rank posters redoing, all paperwork relating to ranks replacing and the list goes on, Pensions, pay etc, one would like to know how much that exercise cost and for what benefit? The current system has been in place for decades, why change it now?"

Nutloose,

I would suggest that the only person 'looking' at this is the OP with an obvious agenda.

Any reference these days to members of the armed forces usually uses that very title, members of the armed forces, not a silly old fashioned phrase like soldiers, sailors and airmen.

That phrase encompasses the uniformed military, Civil Servants, Auxiliaries, Reservists, Full Time Reservists, Civilian employees and contractors, who actually make up the modern armed forces in 2020.

[ORAC]

To be honest so does Officers and Other Ranks. Both gender neutral.

[Hot 'n' High]

Of course, prior to 1914 the RNAS was the Naval Wing of the RFC. := ;)

Anorak on.... ;)

But, of course, prior to May 1912 the Navy had it's own fledgling aviation (started circa 1909) which was then misappropriated by the Pongoes to join their own growing presence in the air to form the RFC in 1912. Due to the, I suspect, "un-officer like qualities" of the Navy element, the Navy was turfed out of the RFC in 1914 and the RNAS was formally set up before another attempt was made in 1918 to form the RAF from both the RFC and RNAS.

The story goes on (and on and on and on and.......) with the RNAS (those who liked living in ships) escaping again in 1924 (finally confirmed in 1936) and the AAC (those who liked living in tents) returning to canvas in 1942 - including the ACC standing down for a while 1949 - 1957 (presumably due to the excessive number of Polo matches being played during those years!). This left those who liked living in 5* hotels to front up the RAF. Interestingly, the arguments for the 3 aviation Services existing as 3 discrete entities rumbles on...........

Anyway, anorak off!!!! :ok: As I say, "nowt changes"! Cheers, H 'n' H

[pr00ne]

To be honest so does Officers and Other Ranks. Both gender neutral.


True. Though it misses out Civil Servants, Civilian employees and contractors, all of whom are a huge part of anything that the services do these days.

[NutLoose]

Anorak on.... ;)

But, of course, prior to May 1912 the Navy had it's own fledgling aviation (started circa 1909) which was then misappropriated by the Pongoes to join their own growing presence in the air to form the RFC in 1912. Due to the, I suspect, "un-officer like qualities" of the Navy element, the Navy was turfed out of the RFC in 1914 and the RNAS was formally set up before another attempt was made in 1918 to form the RAF from both the RFC and RNAS.

The story goes on (and on and on and on and.......) with the RNAS (those who liked living in ships) escaping again in 1924 (finally confirmed in 1936) and the AAC (those who liked living in tents) returning to canvas in 1942 - including the ACC standing down for a while 1949 - 1957 (presumably due to the excessive number of Polo matches being played during those years!). This left those who liked living in 5* hotels to front up the RAF. Interestingly, the arguments for the 3 aviation Services existing as 3 discrete entities rumbles on...........

Anyway, anorak off!!!! :ok: As I say, "nowt changes"! Cheers, H 'n' H

Per ardua ad amex

[Big Pistons Forever]

Per ardua ad amex

You mean Per ardua ad mixas

[The Nip]

I gather Aviators has already been decided upon. As someone mentioned early in these post, new No2 uniform.
Polo shirts with walking type trousers.

[Herod]

new No2 uniform.
Polo shirts with walking type trousers.

Herod despairs

[Sky Sports]

Soldiers, sailors and crabs?
Soldiers, sailors and hotel reviewers?

[ORAC]

Polo shirts with walking type trousers.
Doubtless in some nice acrylic suitable for melting and sticking to the skin in an explosion....

[Cornish Jack]

Aviator means someone who flies, as a pilot.
Arguable, perhaps, especially since the first military personnel to be airborne in battle were the balloon observer/signallers.

[Wwyvern]

Ref the slide into historic facts, I have a WAFU friend, yes some can achieve that status, who goes on about the "Senior" Service. He goes quiet when I point out to him that the Fleet Air Arm ceased to be the Fleet Air Arm of The Royal Air Force as late as 1937.

[Union Jack]

I gather Aviators has already been decided upon. As someone mentioned early in these post, new No2 uniform.
Polo shirts with walking type trousers.

If that were true, however bizarre it would almost certainly appear to most real aviators, it would bring about a whole new dimension for the old adage, "aviate, navigate, communicate" - "prevaricate" perhaps, or some other such word to cover those whom I believe Beagle usually refers to as "blunties".:rolleyes:
​
Ref the slide into historic facts, I have a WAFU friend, yes some can achieve that status, who goes on about the "Senior" Service. He goes quiet when I point out to him that the Fleet Air Arm ceased to be the Fleet Air Arm of The Royal Air Force as late as 1937.

Presumably you go even quieter when your "WAFU friend" patiently points out what the expression the Senior Service really means!:D

Jack

[Wwyvern]

I certainly do. Facts is facts. And he can count.

[charliegolf]

If that were true, however bizarre it would almost certainly appear to most real aviators, it would bring about a whole new dimension for the old adage, "aviate, navigate, communicate" - "prevaricate" perhaps, or some other such word to cover those whom I believe Beagle usually refers to as "blunties".:rolleyes:
​


Presumably you go even quieter when your "WAFU friend" patiently points out what the expression the Senior Service really means!:D

Jack

Packet of Fags?

CG

[Union Jack]

Packet of Fags?

CG
:ok: - although that knowledge suggests you must be older than I thought!:)

Jack

[MG]

Doubtless in some nice acrylic suitable for melting and sticking to the skin in an explosion....
Presumably that’s when SHQ has had to open on a Wednesday afternoon and miss their sport?

Since when did we risk life and limb wearing no2s? Probably the last time was when the shiny fleet wore them on the flight deck.

[Lomon]

We will soon need gender neutral terms for Warrant Officers and Officers.... Sir and Ma'am just don't cut it in the modern world.

[NutLoose]

Ma’am could become Ma’amite...... you either love it or loathe it depending on your preferences ;)

[NutLoose]

Presumably that’s when SHQ has had to open on a Wednesday afternoon and miss their sport?

Since when did we risk life and limb wearing no2s? Probably the last time was when the shiny fleet wore them on the flight deck.

Yes a little WRAF on the VC10 managed to weld her knickers to her butt as the friction of the slide during a test melted the nylon they were made out off. Poor lass was in agony and the smell of burning nylon I’ll never forget.

[pr00ne]

In Star Trek they call everybody Sir...

[Hot 'n' High]

Ref the slide into historic facts, I have a WAFU friend, yes some can achieve that status, who goes on about the "Senior" Service. He goes quiet when I point out to him that the Fleet Air Arm ceased to be the Fleet Air Arm of The Royal Air Force as late as 1937.

Grudgingly, we'll have to give this one (at least in aviation terms) to the Pongoes who were conducting balloon trials at Woolwich back in 1878 with the Navy picking the theme up in 1908 when they finally started looking seriously at Samuel Cody's kites, and shortly thereafter, into airships.

As you say, Wwyvern, there was that "unfortunate interlude" 1918 - 1936 as well as the previous "skirmish" 1912 - 1914 but 1908 was when it all started to take off (as it were) in the Navy and, once the Admiralty had got the concept, they really seemed to go for it.

I like to put it all down to a case of "You can't keep a good dog down" when it comes to the WAFUs remaining as a separate fighting entity................................! :ok:

But I'm sure others will have their own views!!!! :E Cheers, H 'n' H

[ve3id]

Grudgingly, we'll have to give this one (at least in aviation terms) to the Pongoes who were conducting balloon trials at Woolwich back in 1878 with the Navy picking the theme up in 1908 when they finally started looking seriously at Samuel Cody's kites, and shortly thereafter, into airships.

As you say, Wwyvern, there was that "unfortunate interlude" 1918 - 1936 as well as the previous "skirmish" 1912 - 1914 but 1908 was when it all started to take off (as it were) in the Navy and, once the Admiralty had got the concept, they really seemed to go for it.

I like to put it all down to a case of "You can't keep a good dog down" when it comes to the WAFUs remaining as a separate fighting entity................................! :ok:

But I'm sure others will have their own views!!!! :E Cheers, H 'n' H

The Canadian Forces had very interesting terminology when I was a pilot trainee in boot camp. I remember studying the QR & Os one day and see the formulae for married personnel household moving allowances - and came across the phrase 'when an officer or man is married to another officer or man....'

I am all for gender-neutral naming - but what about NOTAMs? In a futuristic novel I published back in 2016 I proposed the term 'NOTAPs' where P = Personnel.

Just wondering...

[NutLoose]

We will soon need gender neutral terms for Warrant Officers and Officers.... Sir and Ma'am just don't cut it in the modern world.

Go German and English... Herr and Her sound the same.

[Lima Juliet]

I’ve thought long and hard about this and if we want to be inclusive of our collective work forces then neither Soldier, Sailor or Aviator is appropriate. Why?

Soldier - implies that everyone in the British Army is intimately involved with closing and killing their enemy on the ground - they aren’t.

Sailor - implies that everyone in the Royal Navy has an at sea role - they don’t. Also, what about the Royal Marines? Sailors? I think not!

Aviator - implies that everyone in the Royal Air Force operates an aircraft delivering Air Power - they don’t.

It is pure elitism if we use these 3x nouns that just does not encompass the 3 Services’ Whole Force and the Chiefs need to all get their heads around the job diversity of their people. I would offer that “Members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces” is a far more inclusive term if we really want to get it right without missing out large chunks of the individual Services’ people.

[NutLoose]

But then you would have to include parts of the police under that heading etc.

[Union Jack]

I’ve thought long and hard about this and if we want to be inclusive of our collective work forces then neither Soldier, Sailor or Aviator is appropriate. Why?

Soldier - implies that everyone in the British Army is intimately involved with closing and killing their enemy on the ground - they aren’t.

Sailor - implies that everyone in the Royal Navy has an at sea role - they don’t. Also, what about the Royal Marines? Sailors? I think not!

Aviator - implies that everyone in the Royal Air Force operates an aircraft delivering Air Power - they don’t.

It is pure elitism if we use these 3x nouns that just does not encompass the 3 Services’ Whole Force and the Chiefs need to all get their heads around the job diversity of their people. I would offer that “Members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces” is a far more inclusive term if we really want to get it right without missing out large chunks of the individual Services’ people.
An interesting rundown although, to apply some perspective, virtually every person joining the Royal Navy, and Royal Marines, is liable for sea service.

So far as the use of "Aviators" is concerned, perhaps a perfectly gender-neutral alternative expression would be "Oakleys"......:cool:

Jack

[Easy Street]

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 :E and it even subtly advertises the fact that all roles are open to women.

[LOMCEVAK]

The word ‘mankind’ includes all members of the species. Therefore, this is a analogous to ‘airman’ applying to all who serve in an Air Force. Any sensible English speaker knows that ‘airman’ applies to all.

I am a total grammar pedant and am a stickler for unambiguous descriptions. However, even I acknowledge common interpretations and meaning such as this.

[Tedderboy]

On a different but related point I understand that the desire to rename the RAF College 'The Royal Air Force Academy Cranwell' has now been dropped because someone has pointed out that the acronym (RAFAC) has already been taken by the air cadets...

[The Banjo]

This about sums it up....

https://youtu.be/nLJ8ILIE780

[ORAC]

https://youtu.be/Y5YW4qKOAVM

[Easy Street]

The word ‘mankind’ includes all members of the species. Therefore, this is a analogous to ‘airman’ applying to all who serve in an Air Force. Any sensible English speaker knows that ‘airman’ applies to all.

I am a total grammar pedant and am a stickler for unambiguous descriptions. However, even I acknowledge common interpretations and meaning such as this.

Many will sympathise with that, but I fear that the only people who can now make that argument and have any chance of getting away with it are our elected masters. It would need one of them to stand up and say “enough of all this: this is how it’s going to be“. I suspect there are political analysts working out whether it’s worth the Tories taking such a stand (on cultural issues in general, not this specific one!) to win votes among the ‘no-nonsense‘ traditional working classes. They probably don’t have many votes to lose among those concerned about social justice, let’s face it. But too much ground has already been given on these matters among the higher echelons of officialdom (Civil Service and military) for anyone else to dare suggest such a thing.

Ultimately, as Orwell recognised, linguistic games like these are inherently political. And I think the seniors will be on shaky ground if they try to deal with them without political input.

[Lima Juliet]

Easy Street - if you look at the RNR website it states:Q. Do all members of the Royal Naval Reserve serve at sea?A. No, but much will depend on the job role assigned to you. Many Reservists will work ashore, rather than at sea.

So with ~3,000 RNRs then that is more than a “slack handful”. There are also Regulars that only ever serve ashore or go aboard without a role to operate the ship - does that make them a “sailor” or a passenger? Just because I go on holiday to France on a P&O ferry, and I know how to operate a fire extinguisher, doesn’t make me a sailor either!

PS. A couple of definitions from Google on Soldiers:

a person (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/person) who is in an army (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/army) and wears (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wear) its (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/its) uniform (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uniform), especially (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/especially) someone who fights (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fight) when there is a war (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/war):

A soldier is the man or woman who fights for their government and carries the weapons, risking their life in the process. The word comes from the Latin solidus, which is the name of the gold coin used to pay soldiers who fought in the Roman army.

[Easy Street]

LJ, cherry picking search results is desperate stuff, but in any case “...especially someone who fights” doesn’t exclude those who don’t fight. If you really must cite Google then try searching “soldier dictionary”. Guess what comes up in the top result box? “A person who serves in an army”. Anyway, I prefer to go with the Concise Oxford, as close to authoritative as I can get without subscribing to the OED. “Soldier: a person serving in or having served in an army.”

It is quite worrying to see otherwise sensible people scurrying about attempting to redefine such basic terms. It is exactly the sort of anti-intellectualism which Orwell and others pushed back against because of the danger it posed to society (think “2+2=5”).

Meanwhile, anyone in the RN or RNR who serves afloat has to complete shipboard firefighting and damage control training and would be expected to take a full part in such activity. That makes them a bit more than a ferry passenger who knows what a fire extinguisher looks like. You know this.

[Lima Juliet]

It is quite worrying to see otherwise sensible people scurrying about attempting to redefine such basic terms. It is exactly the sort of anti-intellectualism which Orwell and others pushed back against because of the danger it posed to society (think “2+2=5”).

This we agree on. Not so sure about the rest. The origin of the word Soldier wins the argument for me and being able to react in an emergency on a ship doesn’t make you a sailor surely - otherwise everyone may as well be an aviator then as they know how to blow up a life jacket, open the emergency hatches, operate a fire extinguisher and go down the slides!

[ORAC]

The term soldier, of course, by its very definition, refers to the military. The term sailor does not - anyone wHo sails, be it navy, merchant marine, yacht or dinghy is by definition a sailor. Similarly aviator/aviatrix etc do don’t define serving in an Air Force.

[Easy Street]

The origin of the word Soldier wins the argument for me

Were there any members of the Roman Army who didn’t fight? If so, were they paid with something other than a solidus? If the answer to both of those questions is yes then you might be onto something in an arcane etymological debate, if you came equipped with good historical evidence. But one line plucked from an internet search result does not an argument make. And especially not in the face of straightforward, authoritative dictionary definitions. Two thousand years of linguistic (and military organisational) evolution is a rather different beast to an overnight redefinition.

Honestly, this thread started out by asking what word the RAF could use to match the gender-neutral ‘soldier’ and ‘sailor’, and it now has you arguing not to use those two words either. Despite the fact that they are inclusive words which have long been used to bind together members of the respective services across rank and trade boundaries to help form a cohesive whole - a key strength of a fighting service. This is *precisely* the kind of pernicious spreading effect which many worry about in arguments like this.

[ORAC]

I’ve got time to spare.......

https://youtu.be/DkQhK8O9Jik

[Roland Pulfrew]

Nutloose,

I would suggest that the only person 'looking' at this is the OP with an obvious agenda.



Unfortunately, with that suggestion, you would be wrong. "They" really are looking at it.

[BEagle]

In Star Trek they call everybody Sir...

Even the Klingons, pr00ne?

[Training Risky]

Unfortunately, with that suggestion, you would be wrong. "They" really are looking at it.
Once the management consultants at STC (also known as HQ Air PLC) have finished tinkering around the edges with their 2000 mile screwdriver they have another important question to answer...

What flying badges will the renamed aviators/warfighters/arcadians wear?

[Tedderboy]

I understand from a recent D&I brief that CAS was recently counselled with regards to the use of the term 'Ladies and Gentlemen' when addressing an audience due to the possible offence caused to individuals who do not identify as either. This appears to be in line with a number of other organisations (London Underground, JAL, Air Canada, Easy Jet etc) who have removed the phrase from their opening announcements - does anyone know what the official MOD guidance is on the use of the term? As previously mentioned in this post it does look like the days of Sir and Ma'am (as in Jam) are indeed numbered as they automatically assign a gender to the recipient - there must be a paper somewhere doing the rounds regarding this. It also makes for an interesting conundrum for the fitness test which also assigns you a gender....genuinely interested (and the D&I girl individual didn't seem to know).

[Pontius Navigator]

Individual? I thought they were team workers so teamster would be reasonable except it has a different meaning.

[polecat2]

Start the briefing with " Hey, you lot!" .

[downsizer]

Interesting to see the MOD expanding it's "core" D&I team in MB will extra servicemen (or women). Good job there are no manning gaps.

[Finningley Boy]

How about, Air Person and air People as the Plural?:)


FB

[Timelord]

Saw an old RAF advert on another thread: “ Join the airocrats “

[Harley Quinn]

As long as this gets rid of the intellectually deceitful and pejorative term 'boys and girls' so beloved of middle ranking management.

[pr00ne]

Odd this, why do people feel the need to open an address to a group of people by addressing them by what gender they think they are? I do a lot of workshops etc to groups of individuals ranging from the young to the quite senior and crusty, and I never feel the need to tell them what gender or old fashioned elitist term I think they are! So I never start with "Ladies and Gentleman" nor do I address them as "guys" or "boys and girls."

A simple "Good morning/afternoon/evening" as appropriate, then I introduce myself and welcome them to the workshop/event/speech etc. Then you are away with the event and it is not a problem.

Simple. No one offended.

\

[teeteringhead]

"Evenin' all" always worked for George Dixon.......

[Door Slider]

A simple "Good morning/afternoon/evening" as appropriate, then I introduce myself and welcome them to the workshop/event/speech etc. Then you are away with the event and it is not a problem.

Simple. No one offended.

Give it another 20 years of “evolution” and someone probably will be.

[Easy Street]

Give it another 20 years of “evolution” and someone probably will be.

Just imagining pr00ne being met with something like this:

How *dare* you so casually assume that this morning is a "good" one for everyone here? You have erased my personal experience of this being far from a "good" morning and now I am so distraught that I cannot listen to anything else you have to say. I will be complaining to your employer. "Good" day to you!

It's ironic that CAS should be pulled up for his language when the senior leadership under his watch has been falling over itself to advance diversity. Maybe it will help them realise that some of its advocates cannot easily be satisfied...

[Tocsin]

The Regt was ahead of it's time then: "Listen in!" is suitably gender-fluid.

...as were the movers :)

[BEagle]

On pax PA, I just used to start with "Hello everyone...."

But an Andover captain once told me of the time he was flying some soldiers from somewhere to somewhere else and decided to address them over the PA. Being a bit of a joker he told the crew "Right, I'll wake those slovenly buggers up now and get them to shut up and listen..." and launched into his PA spiel.

Which would have been fine, except that he switched to PA whilst joking to the crew, so the soldiers heard everything. According to the ALM, the effect was rather startling!

PA switch pigs on the VC10 weren't unknown. OC10 Sqn once amused everyone else on the Brize Tower frequency when giving a lengthy PA spiel to the pax, but on UHF. He told us "As I released the switch I heard an ominous 'click' and thought 'Oh $hit, that'll cost me". It didn't take long before a very polite, gentlemanly comment from the captain of another 10 told him what a very nice pax brief he'd given, but what a shame that they wouldn't have heard it!

[etudiant]

Presumably the old "hi, folks' is a little too relaxed for TPTB. I'll consequently cast my vote the 'Hey, you lot' option.

[cynicalint]

Odd this, why do people feel the need to open an address to a group of people by addressing them by what gender they think they are? I do a lot of workshops etc to groups of individuals ranging from the young to the quite senior and crusty, and I never feel the need to tell them what gender or old fashioned elitist term I think they are! So I never start with "Ladies and Gentleman" nor do I address them as "guys" or "boys and girls."

A simple "Good morning/afternoon/evening" as appropriate, then I introduce myself and welcome them to the workshop/event/speech etc. Then you are away with the event and it is not a problem.

Simple. No one offended.

\
Pr00ne

You will get into trouble proposing nonsense like that! Don't you realize common sense is now infra dig and standard politeness that you display will spark someones offense CAG that you have not singled them out for special attention? Like your advice though...

[Herod]

How *dare* you so casually assume that this morning is a "good" one for everyone here? You have erased my personal experience of this being far from a "good" morning and now I am so distraught that I cannot listen to anything else you have to say. I will be complaining to your employer. "Good" day to you!

A case in UK recently of a hairdressing salon posting on the Job Centre website for a "happy" individual, had it refused, as discriminatory against "unhappy" people. It was accepted, and blamed on an over enthusiastic worker, but not before it hit the press.

[Tedderboy]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12961367/raf-pilots-gender-neutral-titles/

Wingmen are now wingpers apparently?

[NavyNav2]

So how long before the Human Factors course has to be renamed the Hupers Factors course......