Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
(Post 11061206)
Quick question,
with it being 2021 and the dawning of a new age of diversity, could a male identity as a female during a fitness test, achieve a pass at the lower standard and realise they actually identify as a male after all? |
Daily Fail
The article is from the Daily Fail and though I am sure it may be used for cat litter I certainly wouldn't.
For one horrible and unforgivable moment I hovered my mouse over the link. If this role does exist then many of the comments on here explain why it is necessary. |
Originally Posted by Cyberhacker
(Post 11059662)
I offer Nurse - males are still nurses, despite the overtly female assumption
(Fwiw the Royal college of Nursing reports 10.8% of registered nurses as male). |
On the plan to swindle the fitness test, sadly it won’t work. They are “Male” and “Female” standards.
The UK government defines sex as:
|
So the term "gender" is now a social construct, who would have thought. Wouldn't referring to this desk bound MOD Chief as 'er indoors' be another social construct?
|
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]
(Post 11061335)
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 :ok: Or remove sex type from sport all together. |
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet
(Post 11061471)
212man
Yes, and I think it’s wrong. Give them a chromosome check to decide which race they can compete in :ok: 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 :ok: |
Originally Posted by gcal
(Post 11061280)
The article is from the Daily Fail and though I am sure it may be used for cat litter I certainly wouldn't.
For one horrible and unforgivable moment I hovered my mouse over the link. If this role does exist then many of the comments on here explain why it is necessary. 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. |
Originally Posted by pba_target
(Post 11055032)
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 |
Originally Posted by Melchett01
(Post 11054301)
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11065315)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by cynicalint
(Post 11065353)
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 Roman economy WAS the known world economy, but they still needed boots on the ground...
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.