What in the actual…

Any gen? Hoping this is a wind up. It’s utter garbage and further proof that those deckchairs will be immaculately laid out as we sink faster than a breezeblock in a canal.


This is pretty tri service…

The crewman’s workstation on the cabs is now officially the “crew person’s workstation”.

Although I have never come across a situation where this is a problem, I fully respect and understand where it might cause issues. Therefore, I see no issues with changing it.

I said before in the cadet promise thread that changing/fixing things that are small/minor is not a real issue as some people make it out to be. You can go along fixing these minor issues whilst still having other people focus on the bigger issues at hand, such as flying/gliding.

1 Like

Flying Theory?


When CFS say they’re not interested in changing it but we think we know better, then there are issues.

Except… Nobody is. They’re not fixing the bigger issues, they’re fiddling while Rome is burning down.


My biggest issue is that the methodology of changing things by doing Ctrl-F L, find & replace “Man” with “Person” & job done. It’s just patronising lip service & not actually caring about the rationale.

Changing Airmanship to Aviation knowledge make sense but it doesn’t need a survey & certainly doesn’t need 2FTS involved.


Just picked this bit up, it sounds like it’s an over eager volunteer within 2FTS & I doubt Comdt AC has actually agree to this apart from from “ if really want then do so but it’s not a priority”


But whats the bloooming point…

Are we no longer to use the word woman now either?
It shockingly has the letters m.a.n in it…

Where will this all end?!


I disagree. This is one of the commandant’s priorities to go completely gender neutral ASAP, even if that takes us out of sync with the parent service



Ironically if you look closely there is a ‘man’ in commandant so surely he is now comdant :grinning:


It’s one of his priories yes but I don’t think he would have focused on “airmanship” or even done a study. He would have just changed it. I don’t think it’s involved him directly & maybe someone at 2FTS doing a power grab for classification topics.

This reads like someone acting in “the name of the commandant” without the commandant being aware.

1 Like

I’ve seen two so far, so can we try to avoid the most vacuous, fallacy ridden, popular among a certain demographic of dinosaur style arguments please?

In jest or otherwise, it’s just nonsense that isn’t going to help anyone.


So rather than just change gender generic terms to another gender neutral term, why not just change to mean what they achieve not who achieve, e.g instead of marksmanship use shooting level 1, shooting level 3 …etc , airmanship to Air skills level 1 level 2 etc. This way it would come over better as would be more inclusive to all (or at least most)


I did hear that one of the commandant’s offspring has gender dysphoria. Not sure whether that’s actually true or not, but would explain a lot of the changes.


One of his early tweets outlined something like that; I made a bet to myself on when there would be an overload on related topics - should have gone to Ladbrokes, I would have made a bomb!


Has anyone actually received the email that is allegedly in question?

Have we not changed the names to be more up to date anyway? We have Flying Ops and Air Ops don’t we?

It’s a quick win, I don’t see it causing too much issue really. Of course, the best way of learning about flying is by actually doing it, which would be a much better thing to spend time and energy on.


So gender neutral across the board but as a CI I still HAVE to be addressed as SIR despite it not being a rank. This organisation confuses me so much.

There’s gender neutral options & gendered terminology when addressing a person depending on the individual - that not quite the specific issue being referred to here.

The push on gender neutral terminology is to try & deal with institutional terminology that is perceived as sexist or discriminatory forming a sub-conscious confirmation bias.

So if you are referring to something in third person /object tense & an appropriate, gender neutral non-jargon term exists then use that.

This is why replacing the term “Airmanship” with “Aviation knowledge” is straight forward but Marksmanship is difficult due to political sensitivity’s around the word “shooting” & likewise “weapon” - there’s not going to be a term for everything.

1 Like
  1. do you identify as male? If so, what’s the problem? Gender neutral language is principally intended for non person-specific terms and references.

  2. you actually don’t. You could be CI Monkehfu at all times