RAF Gender Neutrality Language-Really??
Are they good at their job?
Are they good at their job?
That’s the first thing I would want to know about someone I am serving with, who I’ve met for the first time.
I don’t really care what they identify as, or what colour, gender etc they are. As long as all is IAW KR’s, and they hold a security clearance, then I’m more concerned about how good they are at their job, and can I trust them 110% professionally if I need to.
I’ve served with plenty who are straight male/female, who identify as such, but are utterly useless at their job. I wouldn’t want to cross the road in their company, let alone go to war with them. Yet if a picture of those individuals ended up on X/Twitter, nobody would bat an eyelid.
Yet we simply have a picture of three RAF personnel on the internet, and they receive a public bad-mouthing by many on this forum.
They may be exceptional at their jobs (perhaps not-who knows).
I have my own personal views on gender neutrality which i shall keep to myself.
Would be great if some focus could be put on fixing the heating in the block though…
That’s the first thing I would want to know about someone I am serving with, who I’ve met for the first time.
I don’t really care what they identify as, or what colour, gender etc they are. As long as all is IAW KR’s, and they hold a security clearance, then I’m more concerned about how good they are at their job, and can I trust them 110% professionally if I need to.
I’ve served with plenty who are straight male/female, who identify as such, but are utterly useless at their job. I wouldn’t want to cross the road in their company, let alone go to war with them. Yet if a picture of those individuals ended up on X/Twitter, nobody would bat an eyelid.
Yet we simply have a picture of three RAF personnel on the internet, and they receive a public bad-mouthing by many on this forum.
They may be exceptional at their jobs (perhaps not-who knows).
I have my own personal views on gender neutrality which i shall keep to myself.
Would be great if some focus could be put on fixing the heating in the block though…
Faiir comment, but I for one have been surprised that there has not been the usual defence/ support of such a group photo. Regretfully I conclude that fewer and fewer feel the need for such defence, as the game is regarded as won by the modernisers. In that scenario, most posters such as I are losers. Very likely.
I do have a question. When confronted by the central person, do a junior airperson say sir or ma'am?
I do have a question. When confronted by the central person, do a junior airperson say sir or ma'am?
Toady, I realise where you are coming from, but...
being "good at their job" encompasses many factors for a serving officer.
Any serving officer should be capable of proudly and competently representing their Service to the wider community.
- Yes, "wider community" does include the LBQTI+ (is that 5% of the population?) but often forgotten are the 95% who do not require such token wokeism.
Are they a competent officer across the functions of the wider Service?
- Are they capable of fulfilling a wide variety of roles, or general duties, as may be required outside their immediate specialisation?
- Are they deployable to combat at short notice?
If they are some kind of penpusher as I suspect, are their (trying to use correct pronoun) admin skills at a high standard?
- Can they write properly - by hand or on a computer - without smudging the ink, correct spelling/grammar etc, in a clear and concise manner.
- Are they capable of commanding their support flight, which would be typically personnel related.
If they are of the engineering variety, can they command the respect and efforts of the troops below them?
- They would obviously have the right engineering credentials, but would they have the right background as demanded for a JENGO/SENGO billet?
- Would they be able to command that respect required for such a position.
If they are air traffic, probably no-one would notice.
If they are aircrew, no that couldn't happen.
being "good at their job" encompasses many factors for a serving officer.
Any serving officer should be capable of proudly and competently representing their Service to the wider community.
- Yes, "wider community" does include the LBQTI+ (is that 5% of the population?) but often forgotten are the 95% who do not require such token wokeism.
Are they a competent officer across the functions of the wider Service?
- Are they capable of fulfilling a wide variety of roles, or general duties, as may be required outside their immediate specialisation?
- Are they deployable to combat at short notice?
If they are some kind of penpusher as I suspect, are their (trying to use correct pronoun) admin skills at a high standard?
- Can they write properly - by hand or on a computer - without smudging the ink, correct spelling/grammar etc, in a clear and concise manner.
- Are they capable of commanding their support flight, which would be typically personnel related.
If they are of the engineering variety, can they command the respect and efforts of the troops below them?
- They would obviously have the right engineering credentials, but would they have the right background as demanded for a JENGO/SENGO billet?
- Would they be able to command that respect required for such a position.
If they are air traffic, probably no-one would notice.
If they are aircrew, no that couldn't happen.
If they are aircrew, no that couldn't happen.
what winds me up is the use of they/them as pronouns when referring to a single person, because they/them are plural words
Can be both. "Someone has dropped their keys on the pavement - I wonder if they will be locked out of their house?"
Interesting point
When confronted by the central person, do a junior airperson say sir or ma'am?
Interestingly, I was in a clothes shop recently and the only changing rooms were unisex.
Personally I’m not comfortable with that. But god forbid I voice those opinions in public…
I guess society changes, and we need to be inside that OODA loop to attract the best talent?
If we dial this right back, a lot of this is driven by a very vocal minority. How many time have those in the silent majority not bothered filling out those "climate surveys", "uniform survey", "AFCAS", etc, etc.....
When 80% of the surveys say they want change because the small return was done by the minority, this is what happens no?
Equally when I briefed my troops they were aviators and not airmen any more there were some collective eyerolls, comments about aviator/aviatrix then the moment passed and they just cracked on unconcerned. Same when the SAC rank was changed.
When 80% of the surveys say they want change because the small return was done by the minority, this is what happens no?
Equally when I briefed my troops they were aviators and not airmen any more there were some collective eyerolls, comments about aviator/aviatrix then the moment passed and they just cracked on unconcerned. Same when the SAC rank was changed.
I cannot recall being taught a more elegant solution.
how long it will be before there is a gender neutral way of referring to those of a more senior rank than myself
If youy believe numerous police dramas, they've been doing this for years.
*or Ma'am
I can recall the day in the late 1970s when the light bulb moment happened to me. My line manager at JHQ Rheindahlen [we were all civvy Met.] had the very most junior staff calling him by his Christian name, to the extent that I thought was plain wrong. I asked him privately over a single malt if this was a good idea. I was firmly told that it was indeed a good idea and I had better fall in line. Thus rebuked, my fall-back defence line was to insist on "David" rather than "Dave".
Strangely enough, the world continue to rotate, and the job continued to be done.
The following users liked this post:
A surprising number of people seem to use it as a punctuation point in some of the meetings I attend.
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
A surprising number of people seem to use it as a punctuation point in some of the meetings I attend.
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
Once a year I get my Carol sung for me. "Once in Royal David's city"
Mods feel free, as ever.
The following users liked this post:
A surprising number of people seem to use it as a punctuation point in some of the meetings I attend.
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
Very strange, because in normal conversation people wouldn't say "David, thank you, I have no points David, however David, should something arise this afternoon from my next meeting David, then I'll get the points into an email for you soonest, David."
