The regulations will still exist, they will just say something different.
There will still be limitations to freedom of choice within the choice we offer.
As now, if it’s in the book it’s permissable (vice-versa) and no one would legitimately be able to tell someone otherwise:
If it says “cadets of any gender with long hair must conform to xyz” then no one can tell a male (cis/trans) or other gendered (andro/non-binary/pan…) cadet that they can’t.
Just like it currently says “cadets of any rank are permitted to wear a stable belt of either style” - no one should be limiting it to “NCOs only” or “x style only”.
Us NCOs will still have plenty to do to keep us happy, but thank you for your concern.
In theory perhaps.
Put limitations in place and someone will challenge it and “we’ve always done it like that” won’t cut it.
Hair is an interesting point. I’ve seen a couple of male cadets one of mine and one from a neighbouring sqn who have hair that doesn’t meet the laid down standard. I can only assume that after barbers were shut for so long, they’ve got to like it. Not sure we can tell them to get it cut. I have to admit it was odd getting my haircut with nearly 4 months more growth than normal.
Over the years I can remember boys having mohecans, mullets and hair stuffed into berets which flopped down and staff having pink fits. Being me I was a bit more open and rather than kick up a stink, let it ride as like most fads they come, peak then fade. Like some who had their trousers ‘drainpiped’ in the 70s.
If the rule says males can wear their hair one way, and females another, and the reason you’re telling a male cadet to cut their hair is because their male, then that is a protected characteristic.
The regulations envisage the potential for a non-binary cadet or adult volunteer to wish to present alternatively as male or female. This might mean long hair worn in regulation pattern, which would NOT need to be cut when wearing male uniform.
The permissions were deliberately set at regional level to AVOID local obstacles. This is policy set at RAFAC commandant level and regional commandants are all aware and fully onside.
That .4% is incredibly unreliable, and likely much higher. It’s based on the 2011 census which posed the question of what is your sex? Giving only the options of male and female. The .4% represents those who ticked both boxes, no box, or wrote over the top of the question. Further to that, a large number of people did that census electronically where a non binary option did not exists, as you couldn’t move forward in the questions unless you ticked a box, and you could only tick one box.
According to official statistics, the proportion of the UK population who define as non-binary when given a choice between male, female and another option is 0.4%, which is 1 in 250 people (Titman, 2014).
If your statement is correct, then you are saying a paper published by an organisation devoted to ’ Positively changing how the media understands and portrays transgender people’ is misrepresenting the statistic.
This seems unlikely, so I am interested in the source of your information.
Why do people need to get permission? Surely that goes against the whole ethos of the diversity/equality/inclusivity agenda? I thought it was all about take me as I am and or want to be.
One of my mates in school said there are 3 girls who now identify as boys and one who is neutral, they just came in and said this is how it is from now. He did say there have been some tears when staff forget.
It’s “permission” in name and authority only - as already discussed above if I remember correctly. OC gets a recorded “nod” from RC that can be waved in the face of anyone who tries to kick up a stink or go against policy/authorisation.
I’m sure we all enjoy having top cover when it’s available.