Sadly, you can’t tell folks what to say because if they don’t believe it they will either avoid saying it or carry on. Remember all of the effort to stop calling drones ‘drones’ - it didn’t work. You can’t force people to stop using airmanship, as much as you can’t stop them using human, woman, fireman, horseman, crewman, spaceman, seaman, etc…etc…, or their derivatives like horsemanship or seamanship, if they don’t want to.

Personally, I don’t use Aviator either - it is wrong in the true meaning and also it is the masculine term to the female Aviatrix. I use in day-to-day language either Service Personnel, RAF Personnel, Officers, WOs, SNCOs, JNCOs and Enlisted Personnel if I want to be correct over the errant use of Aviator (unless, of course, I am referring to a male who flies or operates an aircraft). There is no way that the Services can force me not to do this as it is correct and not misleading.

I’ll leave you with this thought. The use of ‘horsemanship’ by the British Horse Society (BHS) is commonplace - it is the main Charity for horse ownership and sport in the UK. Now what is intriguing about this is that the Board of Directors of the BHS is around 85% FEMALE. So this female dominant organisation does not worry about the use of ‘horsemanship’ in their sport, which across the UK has ~75% female horse riding followership , and they just get on with it. So why does a sport with a female majority still publish and use the word ‘horsemanship’ if, according to some ‘allies’ and ‘male saviours’, they really are that bothered about it? Oddly enough, even though they have the full majority to change it, they don’t and just carry on. Maybe other organisations should learn from the BHS what females really want…

Nah, they're all wannabe men ... :O :O

I think ex military people get irritated by woke rubbish like this because the military is a family rather than a job/career for a lot of the people who join up. Even once they have left the service they will still continue to feel a strong connection to the service they were in, quite a few will be in receipt of a pension, many will attend reunions, they will continue to socialise and maybe even work with serving and ex serving people, etc. Personally, having served myself and obviously known many others who also have, I would find it a little strange if someone gave zero $h1ts about what happens to their service once they've left.

This absolutely covers my feelings. I spent the majority of my life (so far) in the RAF, and still care what happens to the organisation that ‘made me’. It irks me greatly when some folk apparently don’t give a hoot the moment they step out the door. The RAF was to me far more than just a job…and I was proud to be associated with those that had gone before (accepting that attitudes and behaviour changed in the 35 years of my service).

Yes and not only those in the tent. The best years of my 41 service were cheek by jowl with RAF of all ranks that it was a privilege to know.
Not a job, an honorable profession, and remembered on B oB Day.

Yes and not only those in the tent. The best years of my 41 service were cheek by jowl with RAF of all ranks that it was a privilege to know.
Not a job, an honorable profession, and remembered on B oB Day.

Unfortunately, it's commonplace for batspersons of any sex/gender/persuasion to be refered to that way in Oz. Why not just "Fred's a good bat" as was common usage before 'batter" came along.

He was a very good bat, but a better bowl.

During the women’s football World Cup a group of ‘pundits’ were discussing ‘man marking’. The all female presenters were trying to say ‘person marking’ but kept slipping up, still calling it ‘man marking’

If he's got big red leather balls, does that make him a good catch?

M0nkfish
 

My feelings come from the fact that the friends I have spoken with who ARE STILL SERVING have told me it’s not really that big a deal. I think we all know that there are currently bigger fish to fry than pronouns and that mistakes have been made regarding recruiting. However, day to day life has been largely unaffected and if these changes need to be made to attract FUTURE generations then so be it. The RAF is not trying to recruit septuagenarians after all.

If I were to look to rejoin in the future and the RAF deemed me useful enough I wouldn’t be put off by briefings regarding pronouns. I might be put off by the pay and conditions though but that’s a conversation for a different thread.

BV

Just wondering what the current rules are on mixed contact within the single accommodation?

Being caught with someone of a different sex in your room was an expensive occurrence in my day.

One that does appear to go against the previous norm is acting,

we once had the “male” Actor.
and the “female” Actress.
but Actress was dropped and now both sexes are known as Actors, perhaps that may be a generic route to follow. After all in a similar way they dropped the W from WRAF.

If the stated aim of genuine inclusion and avoidance of unnecessary offence was indeed the actual aim, and if there was convincing evidence of genuine offence being reasonably taken being addressed by such measures, I think there would at least be a case to be made for it, despite the inevitable confusion which will arise as soon as you dispense with the ability to distinguish linguistically between singular and plural.


The initial problem is that this gender-neutrality is being forced upon us without any discussion, consensus or consultation and we are all being pressurised to conform. Those who object on perfectly legitimate grounds are potentially on thin ice, as we have seen in civvy street where careers, livelihoods, reputations and even personal safety are threatened in order to quell dissent. What sanctions await those in the services who have the bravery (sadly that is what it takes these days) to continue using correct English we shall have to wait and see.

The second problem is a much more serious one. It appears that the RAF - and presumably the rest of HM Forces - is embracing identity politics. This is evident from the drive to gender neutrality - I'm assuming to avoid 'misgendering', which by implication is a tacit attempt to present as a fait accompli the notion of there being more than one gender. We also have seen it in the gradual rise of 'preferred pronouns' on e-mail signature blocks, presumably for the same reason. And we have seen it in the recent furore over recruiting white males - in that case the context was race though, not gender.


Each of these individual issues in isolation is arguably relatively trivial, and nothing to get too concerned about, some might say. It's being done for reasons of compassion, equality, fairness. Who can reasonably complain about that? Take a few steps back and a wider perspective however and the direction of travel begins to become apparent.


The elimination of offence is being presented as justification for changing the ways people have been conducting themselves in relation to one another for centuries, to the extent that, in the case of gender ideology and trans activism, now denial of factual reality is deemed acceptable. If prevention of offence is to be elevated to that extent, then what of crewroom banter, much of which could easily be claimed to be offensive despite it invariably being given and taken in good humour. How will that be policed? Will it be banned? What then of humour or jokes in general, much of which is at someone's expense?


Once the idea that avoiding hurting someone's feelings are paramount, the door is opened to anyone contending anything they wish, no matter how preposterous, and justifying it by maintaining that failing to comply with his or her demands will result in hurt feelings. Once you've conceded the principle that avoiding offence is paramount, you don't have a leg to stand on.


Those at the top haven't thought this through. Identity politics will completely wreck the effectiveness of the armed forces if it isn't stopped.

If the stated aim of genuine inclusion and avoidance of unnecessary offence was indeed the actual aim, and if there was convincing evidence of genuine offence being reasonably taken being addressed by such measures, I think there would at least be a case to be made for it, despite the inevitable confusion which will arise as soon as you dispense with the ability to distinguish linguistically between singular and plural.

The initial problem is that this gender-neutrality is being forced upon us without any discussion, consensus or consultation and we are all being pressurised to conform. Those who object on perfectly legitimate grounds are potentially on thin ice, as we have seen in civvy street where careers, livelihoods, reputations and even personal safety are threatened in order to quell dissent. What sanctions await those in the services who have the bravery (sadly that is what it takes these days) to continue using correct English we shall have to wait and see.
The second problem is a much more serious one. It appears that the RAF - and presumably the rest of HM Forces - is embracing identity politics. This is evident from the drive to gender neutrality - I'm assuming to avoid 'misgendering', which by implication is a tacit attempt to present as a fait accompli the notion of there being more than one gender. We also have seen it in the gradual rise of 'preferred pronouns' on e-mail signature blocks, presumably for the same reason. And we have seen it in the recent furore over recruiting white males - in that case the context was race though, not gender.

Each of these individual issues in isolation is arguably relatively trivial, and nothing to get too concerned about, some might say. It's being done for reasons of compassion, equality, fairness. Who can reasonably complain about that? Take a few steps back and a wider perspective however and the direction of travel begins to become apparent.

The elimination of offence is being presented as justification for changing the ways people have been conducting themselves in relation to one another for centuries, to the extent that, in the case of gender ideology and trans activism, now denial of factual reality is deemed acceptable. If prevention of offence is to be elevated to that extent, then what of crewroom banter, much of which could easily be claimed to be offensive despite it invariably being given and taken in good humour. How will that be policed? Will it be banned? What then of humour or jokes in general, much of which is at someone's expense?

Once the idea that avoiding hurting someone's feelings are paramount, the door is opened to anyone contending anything they wish, no matter how preposterous, and justifying it by maintaining that failing to comply with his or her demands will result in hurt feelings. Once you've conceded the principle that avoiding offence is paramount, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The people at the top haven't thought this through. Identity politics will completely wreck the effectiveness of the armed forces if it isn't stopped.

BV, wrong thread. :p

Not if the aircraft identifies as trans-sonic.

Damn
 

I wondered where my post went! In my defence, it was very early!

BV

Except of course Nutty when they're up for the Best Actress Oscar.......

”There might not be any hot water or heating in the block, the food might be sh!t and the pay p!ss poor, but at least the RAF is getting gender neutral language right…sign me up now!”

Said no new recruit ever!