My great grandfather was RNAS then RAF as aircrew my grandfather, great uncle and my uncle were all RAF engineers
I was taught by them an aviator were the guys who fly the aircraft, but it’s the airman who’s craft it is to get his backside up there….
To me the term Aviator just doesn’t sit right…
Is there anyone in the navy who isn’t trained to go to sea?
I thought they were all trained sailors first and foremost…
Aviator is also gendered…
I understand this.
However, if something is in common use then its meaning can evolve. That’s the beauty of language.
Yep language definition can change, i.e. Senior Aircraftman or simply SAC could evolve to mean a rank for a person of any gender prior to becoming an NCO.
Would Aeronaut be a better option than Aviator.
Not gendered, doesn’t imply they fly and an easy swap with junior ranks of AC, LAC & SAC becoming AN, LAN, SAN rather than AV, LAV & SAV.
Is there anyone in the RAF who isn’t “trained” to go in the air?
Not all sailors can drive or fix boats, not all air(wo)man can fly or fix planes 
Think fast, embrace change. Adapt or die.
It’s a modern world out there.
Sorry what? How?
That’s just nonsense.
Um, why? Is everything that @Paracetamol has never heard before nonsense?
And it’s in the OED too
(screenshot because OED is behind a paywall, I have access to it via work)
Same root for Prosecutor and Prosecutrix. But noone ever uses the latter. Which is a shame, it’s a cool word.
and dominator / dominatrix
Whereas on my side of the line, I quite enjoy teaching people the difference between testator and testatrix, executor and executrix, and I think it’s nice we still use them.
Back OT, yes, language evolves. Language is part of our society and culture and evolves with them, which means all the time it is unacceptable in society to describe someone who isn’t a man as a man, “aircraftman” will not evolve to mean a rank for a person who isn’t a man, no matter how much those who dislike change may wish otherwise.
Whether aviator is considered the right term or not, it is wonderful to see the RAF adapting to reflect the makeup of the service in the 21st century.
I’m also in the camp that aviator stirs up implications of being a pilot…
Aircrew seems a better fit as it’s more encompassing but is already in use for those with non-pilot yet still flying roles.
Of course sailor isn’t strictly accurate as the Navy doesn’t use sails on its operational ships so there be some flexibility in the definition of words/terms.
(Shipmate could be argued to be more accurate for example but traditional has stuck with sailor)
Is not a case of disliking change, most its afuss abount nothing as most I know man/woman/other don’t give a hoot, its the do gooders constant need fir attention that is the issue and the fact if you dare to have a different opinion you are labeled old or genderphobic. Plus all the arguments of language evolves except ghe bits you don’t agree with wont evolve is just plain opinion and not necessarily fact. The change is about acceptance and you cannot put a label on that
Aircrew are pilots navigators etc so do you want to try a different term it the gender neutral going to hijack those terms aswell
And the Cambridge English dictionary refers Amy Johnson as an Aviator, so the arguement loop keeps turning.
It’s always amazed me how a description for someone who “does good” through charitable actions, being law-abiding, or just generally being nice to people, inclusive, non-offensive, etc gets used as an insult - more so how users think it’s an effective one as opposed to an indictment of their own views.
How is it not blatant irony that someone can admit that someone they disagree with is being “good”.
