I’ll reopen this once I’ve removed the chuff.
1 Like
Right. Cleaned up.
1 Like
1 Like
“they”.
That you know this person has requested being called neutral terms and have chosen not to is damning.
The dissonance here is interesting. It reads like you want the RAF to say “we accept gender diversity, but will still call you ‘man’ regardless”…
That makes no sense.
6 Likes
Incidentally, Now that the army has allowed female soldiers, the Guards division has chosen the word Guardsman to be the role that a soldier in the Guards occupies and is gender neutral. So all guards whether they are male, female of something else are still called Guardsman.
1 Like
What was wrong with just ‘Guard’?
3 Likes
To be fair there isn’t as much of an issue with using Guardsman/Airman etc as long as only the one is on use. (In the same way that older laws are all written in the masculine).
It’s where you have Airman/Airwoman that you create an issue with not including those who are non-binary or who are gender neutral.
1 Like
No idea, the person i was talking to was too far down the pecking order to know the why or how.
Garda?
Yes, the An Garda Siochána - I believe individual Garda are often referred to by the anglicised version ‘Guard’. Reminds me of the 2011 comedy ‘The Guard’ with Brendan Gleeson 
1 Like
Absolutely spot on, and there is a minority who you will NEVER please, because they make a living out of being ‘outraged and offended’!
Another useful contribution there.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Having had a quick look at a Thesaurus for gender neutral pronoun’s
I think Air-type is very RAF…
There’s more than one. The most angry and vocal about this type of thing consists of majority demographics that aren’t affected or targeted by such adaptations.
4 Likes
You’re not kidding… We’ve seen at least two in here.
Imagine being so thin-skinned as to be angered or upset about a move to be more inclusive. What a sad world such people must live in.
9 Likes
Or so thick skinned that it isn’t recognised that id are more than one side of an arguement / discussion. Maybe we stick to discussion of what term was chosen as replacement as opposed to the why
There is no rational, sensible or coherent “other side” to an argument about representing everyone equally.
1 Like