MOD Diversity Chief
On the plan to swindle the fitness test, sadly it won’t work. They are “Male” and “Female” standards.
So unless you are going to have your X and Y chromosomes fiddled with by some unknown science (you can’t currently change these), you are kind of stuck with what you have got!!! So the ‘sex change’ is really not a sex change at all - as you can have your male or female gonads removed, but you will still be technically male or female. If you choose to identify as a man or a woman, or whatever else, then you will still have to complete the fitness standard of the male or female - regardless of your gonad status!
The UK government defines sex as:
- referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
- generally male or female
- something that is assigned at birth
- a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth
- where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
Maya Forstater lost her job for tweeting, quite correctly, that you can't change your biological sex no matter how much you want to identify as anything else - she has won her appeal though.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Maya Forstater lost her job for tweeting, quite correctly, that you can't change your biological sex no matter how much you want to identify as anything else - she has won her appeal though.
Sex and gender are different concepts that are often used interchangeably. The UK government refers to sex as being biologically defined, and gender as a social construct that is an internal sense of self, whether an individual sees themselves as a man or a woman, or another gender identity. They encompass many different identities and may be non-binary (that is, not a man or a woman).
If you choose to identify as a man or a woman, or whatever else, then you will still have to complete the fitness standard of the male or female - regardless of your gonad status!
212man
Yes, and I think it’s wrong. Give them a chromosome check to decide which race they can compete in
Or remove sex type from sport all together.
Yes, and I think it’s wrong. Give them a chromosome check to decide which race they can compete in
Or remove sex type from sport all together.
I guess we won't have nicknames/callsigns any longer?
Frosty: an RAN helicopter driver who was of Japanese ancestry, hence a 'Nip in the air'
Thrush: a general term for an irritating twit
And so on: add your favourites here
Frosty: an RAN helicopter driver who was of Japanese ancestry, hence a 'Nip in the air'
Thrush: a general term for an irritating twit
And so on: add your favourites here
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1000+ Posts
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments here are merely people expressing a legitimate opinion. The fact you don't like what is being said is your problem, not ours.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,110
Received 19 Likes
on
12 Posts
I'd be interested to know, out of the long list of posters above, how many would sign up to a job title with an overtly female title with no male equivalent. How many male rearcrew would have signed up to be a "Crewlady" or techies to be a "Senior Aircraftswoman (Tech)" if there was no male equivalent?
I can't see the NHS changing this title anytime soon
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Leeds
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve served with blacks whites and every colour in between, gays, straight, transsexuals, and just generally confused sorts. All anybody cares about when the rounds are flying is can you do your job and not get everyone killed.
And what I find more offensive as a member of a fighting Service is that my Service cares more about my being in date for health & safety and D&I training than it does about the last time I fired a weapon. And just looking at her photo and reading her bio you get the impression she is one of nature’s perpetually offended who will find offence in everything but not actually question how such offence makes doing our job of defending the country easier or more effective.
And what I find more offensive as a member of a fighting Service is that my Service cares more about my being in date for health & safety and D&I training than it does about the last time I fired a weapon. And just looking at her photo and reading her bio you get the impression she is one of nature’s perpetually offended who will find offence in everything but not actually question how such offence makes doing our job of defending the country easier or more effective.
Can you honestly not see the irony of you describing exactly how offended you get, and in the next breath complaining about someone getting offended too much?
The question is how does all this "woke" business improve combat effectiveness of a military force....not who is offended or triggered or has their knickers in a wad over the use of some pronoun or rank while addressing others.
Is this latest surrender to Political Correctness actually in any way going to make the RAF or any other military force better at achieving its reason for being.....that being defending the Nation in combat with an aggressor enemy.
I see all of this as being a huge distraction from that mission....the training it requires to be prepared......assets that would otherwise be available.....and worst of all....it brings division among the Troops as they all deal with this.
Anything that dulls the point of the Spear is bad for the Force holding that Spear.
Last edited by SASless; 20th Jun 2021 at 19:36.
Col. Jessop's rants were spot on. It was his ordering an illegal "Code Red" and trying to cover it up that was wrong. Current trends and attempts at equlity legislation could unfortunately, sooner or later, lead to such a situation where command cannot take remedial steps about a dysfunctional subordinate without breaking some Hate Law or Equality legislation. We need to differentiate between correct discipline and bullying and prevent hurt feelings from creating a non-functioning fighting force.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is how does all this "woke" business improve combat effectiveness of a military force....not who is offended or triggered or has their knickers in a wad over the use of some pronoun or rank while addressing others.
Is this latest surrender to Political Correctness actually in any way going to make the RAF or any other military force better at achieving its reason for being.....that being defending the Nation in combat with an aggressor enemy.
I see all of this as being a huge distraction from that mission....the training it requires to be prepared......assets that would otherwise be available.....and worst of all....it brings division among the Troops as they all deal with this.
Anything that dulls the point of the Spear is bad for the Force holding that Spear.
Is this latest surrender to Political Correctness actually in any way going to make the RAF or any other military force better at achieving its reason for being.....that being defending the Nation in combat with an aggressor enemy.
I see all of this as being a huge distraction from that mission....the training it requires to be prepared......assets that would otherwise be available.....and worst of all....it brings division among the Troops as they all deal with this.
Anything that dulls the point of the Spear is bad for the Force holding that Spear.
Can you honestly even conceive of Russia or China invading the UK? Wouldn’t happen in a million years. Get rid of most of the 3 services and bolster the coast guard slightly to protect from smugglers.
The days of defending a nation against an aggressive force are long past us, at least for first world nations
The only thing that changes are the idiots that say there is no threat of war,. when the biggest threat to war is the attitude that no threat exists.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said exactly the same in 1938. Even earlier, - Si vis pacem, para bellum ( Publis Flavius Vegetius Renatus - 4th or 5th century AD),
The only thing that changes are the idiots that say there is no threat of war,. when the biggest threat to war is the attitude that no threat exists.
The only thing that changes are the idiots that say there is no threat of war,. when the biggest threat to war is the attitude that no threat exists.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire and Bedfordshire
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The days of defending a nation against an aggressive force are long past us, at least for first world nations. Economic war is much more practicable and successful, and you don’t need an army to defend from that.
Can you honestly even conceive of Russia or China invading the UK? Wouldn’t happen in a million years. Get rid of most of the 3 services and bolster the coast guard slightly to protect from smugglers.
Can you honestly even conceive of Russia or China invading the UK? Wouldn’t happen in a million years. Get rid of most of the 3 services and bolster the coast guard slightly to protect from smugglers.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
