What is going on at the top??
Hmmm
"back in the day", Airmen made sense. Society has changed - 1 in 5 of the RAF is not male, so airmen seems inaccurate and innapropriate.
As usual the "of course there's no such thing as discrimination (mainly because I'm a middle class white male)" brigade are out in force getting worked up about a change that makes no impact or difference to their lives, but may make a meaningful difference to those who are serving now.
To those who say "but standards and in my day" - firstly, the operative phrase is 'your day' - that was then, this is now. Thank you for your service, but let those who are serving now express a view on what they want - your views are an irrelevance. Secondly, the RAF is always changing and has done since it was formed. The RAF you served in was so different to the one you joined, the one you learned about as a kid, and the one you left as to be a never permanent organisation - don't assume that because things were done a certain way once, that this continues to make sense.
Finally, you may wish to reflect on the impact your words have - you may want to get all angry and hit the keyboard moaning about snowflakes and diversity and how it was better when you were in - but please remember that in moaning, you are directly attacking the people who serve now. I personally think they deserve more respect than being insulted by yesterdays men who are unhappy with the idea of a very simple change.
As usual the "of course there's no such thing as discrimination (mainly because I'm a middle class white male)" brigade are out in force getting worked up about a change that makes no impact or difference to their lives, but may make a meaningful difference to those who are serving now.
To those who say "but standards and in my day" - firstly, the operative phrase is 'your day' - that was then, this is now. Thank you for your service, but let those who are serving now express a view on what they want - your views are an irrelevance. Secondly, the RAF is always changing and has done since it was formed. The RAF you served in was so different to the one you joined, the one you learned about as a kid, and the one you left as to be a never permanent organisation - don't assume that because things were done a certain way once, that this continues to make sense.
Finally, you may wish to reflect on the impact your words have - you may want to get all angry and hit the keyboard moaning about snowflakes and diversity and how it was better when you were in - but please remember that in moaning, you are directly attacking the people who serve now. I personally think they deserve more respect than being insulted by yesterdays men who are unhappy with the idea of a very simple change.
I completely get that, but I always considered we are all human ( perhaps we shouldn't be called that anymore!!!). If the term is airman for a a male or airwoman for a female means just that , it just says the sex of the person. If they want to identify as something in-between fair enough but why deny service people who do identify as an airman or airwoman their own say how they are rated.
Agree fully! My impression is that it has set off with good intentions, but is trying to legislate or provide guidance for every human interaction there could be. Many of the 'inclusive terms' are a synonym for the 'less inclusive term' or four words to say exactly the same as one word conveys. Some of their observations appear to be plain wrong, innacurate and offensive in themselves to one party or another.
That it took a directorate to produce that document is astonishing, and shines a light on the 'Grown-Up' thinking in the MoD.
Any word can be offensive or non-inclusive if the user decides it to be, and vice-verca.
To quote Lewis Carroll “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
V2.0 will, indeed, be interesting.
That it took a directorate to produce that document is astonishing, and shines a light on the 'Grown-Up' thinking in the MoD.
Any word can be offensive or non-inclusive if the user decides it to be, and vice-verca.
To quote Lewis Carroll “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
V2.0 will, indeed, be interesting.
I must admit that it has been quite novel to write my work emails with deliberate "on message" expressions. Those who know me will see the transformation but nobody has said anything about it. Perhaps they daren't in case they think that I'd be offended. Or if they mocked my new-found vocabulary, their response might become part of an email chain where a real disciple of ASTRA might see it ... then they'll be sorry, and I will get away with being the PC warrior, even though I'm not. I'm toying with the system and with the minds of fellow aviators, and I'll wait and see who gives up first. Perhaps the novelty will wear off.
I find it noteworthy that SofS has taken interest in this publication. Together with things like the widespread adoption of Stonewall guidance on transgender matters across the public sector, and recent reversals at ministerial behest, it does rather suggest that unelected officials (maybe including uniformed ones!) have been taking such matters further than our elected representatives are comfortable with. The question of whether public services should lead, match, follow, or ignore changes in wider society is inherently a political one, and language which a senior civil servant in London might consider a new societal norm could well appear to others as unwelcome social engineering, so it is absolutely right for politicians to call the shots on these issues.
On a related note, I can't imagine SofS includes "he/him" in his email signature block, so it'd also be interesting to see if he takes a view on the fact that some leaders in his department continue tomandate strongly encourage the use of personal pronouns, having uncritically accepted the Stonewall guidance now in retreat elsewhere...
On a related note, I can't imagine SofS includes "he/him" in his email signature block, so it'd also be interesting to see if he takes a view on the fact that some leaders in his department continue to
The one aspect of this whole inclusiv-speak bolleaux which particular irks me is the use of a plural pronoun for a singular issue. I was reading an infringement report which kept describing what 'they' had or hadn't done correctly and it was only when looking further that I saw that the aircraft was being flown solo. Which put an entirely different complexion on the whole incident.
There was an item on TV (television) recently in which some androgynous American couple announce that they didn't have a baby - it was a 'theyby'....
There was an item on TV (television) recently in which some androgynous American couple announce that they didn't have a baby - it was a 'theyby'....
The one aspect of this whole inclusiv-speak bolleaux which particular irks me is the use of a plural pronoun for a singular issue. I was reading an infringement report which kept describing what 'they' had or hadn't done correctly and it was only when looking further that I saw that the aircraft was being flown solo. Which put an entirely different complexion on the whole incident.
There was an item on TV (television) recently in which some androgynous American couple announce that they didn't have a baby - it was a 'theyby'....
There was an item on TV (television) recently in which some androgynous American couple announce that they didn't have a baby - it was a 'theyby'....
Consider:
'Each pilot submitted their report to the committee. ( their is plural)
not
Each pilot submitted his or her report to the committee.'
Fortunately neither English grammar nor vocabulary is ossified.
Last edited by beardy; 14th Dec 2021 at 10:23.
Quite so, beardy. Avoiding the use of pronouns and writing in a manner which would render them superfluous would have been preferable.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: An Ivory Tower
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people instinctively use 'they' routinely in the singular sense in situations where they are unaware of the gender of the subject: "somebody stole my car but THEY were never caught" or "somebody dropped a tenner on the path, I bet THEY regretted that when THEY realised". So perhaps 'they' is a better way to describe an individual who is unsure of their own gender? I make this point out of either wokeness or kindness depending upon your view!
Thought police antagonist
It's amusing really to read the ire about the semantics of the English language, which, like society, is constantly evolving some of you will be shocked to learn.
However, today's Guardian has kindly provided a solution.
From now on you simply address each other as soldier...no gender confusion involved !
See caption under the photo " RAF soldier "
NHS gears up for ‘huge challenge’ to hit PM’s new booster jab target | Coronavirus | The Guardian
However, today's Guardian has kindly provided a solution.
From now on you simply address each other as soldier...no gender confusion involved !
See caption under the photo " RAF soldier "
NHS gears up for ‘huge challenge’ to hit PM’s new booster jab target | Coronavirus | The Guardian
The trouble with avoiding something like that is that what comes out can sound contrived, convoluted, formal and a bit pompous. It's so difficult to avoid. There is a fine dividing line between giving offence and taking offence whilst still achieving effective communication. On a personal level I only take offence when deliberately insulted.
The one aspect of this whole inclusiv-speak bolleaux which particular irks me is the use of a plural pronoun for a singular issue. I was reading an infringement report which kept describing what 'they' had or hadn't done correctly and it was only when looking further that I saw that the aircraft was being flown solo. Which put an entirely different complexion on the whole incident.
I must admit that I find the singular 'they' a bit irritating, but apparently there are examples in literature back to the 14th century. Maybe after a few more hundred years it will cease to grate!
Last edited by Recc; 14th Dec 2021 at 13:46.
Thou theese them as theese thou first. As in tu and vous
Aye, there is, but it is to 'thee' ie to call someone thee (the familiar form of the formal thou) and was used to economise on the word count by my wife's grandfather, a rather bluff man, to reprimand an over familiar farm hand.
A bit like Shakespeare really turning nouns into verbs and generally playing with and expanding our language
A bit like Shakespeare really turning nouns into verbs and generally playing with and expanding our language
Last edited by beardy; 15th Dec 2021 at 05:27.
Now MOD has a "Welsh Language Champion" Welsh Language Champion appointed as Defence updates the Welsh Language Scheme. Penodi Pencampwr y Gymraeg wrth i’r Weinyddiaeth Amddiffyn ddiweddaru ei Chynllun Iaith Gymraeg - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Absolutely a good idea. Not only is the RAF located at Valley and other places in Wales, but there are many Welsh speaking servicemen and women in the RAF and wider armed forces. Indeed, in Bosnia the Welsh language was used as a means to secure comms from Serbs who were listening in.
