For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13
#1885806
TheFarmer wrote:So, does that mean a gender fluid pilot is an Aviatortrix?

Anyway, must dash. I’ve got to hoover out my aeroplane’s vaginapit.

Which takes me back to my first ever post on the Flyer Forum. Haven’t you heard that the cockpit was renamed the box office? :lol:
Rob P, seanxair, StratoTramp and 2 others liked this
#1885810
Growing a set (beard) in the RN means that special spectacles have to be made for the wearer in order that the inflatable seal around gas masks and emergency breathing apparatus remains intact. By the left, in my time I’ve seen some WRNS who could grow a beard, dandruff on their shoes ‘n all that.
#1885853
johnm wrote:
Red wrote:Men and women are not the same (Thank heavens), the whole human race would be up the creek if that was so.
I am completely baffled at this modern fashion to ban any language denoting the difference and its got nothing to do with equal rights


It has everything to do with attitudes and it's quite complicated. Some argue that being "gentlemanly" is the answer, but many women feel patronised by that. Women still suffer from predatory males and so on....

An effort to put women and men on a wholly equal footing, doesn't imply that men and women are the same, "equal" and "same" aren't synonyms.



You've missed the point and then agreed with it at the end :lol:


An effort to put women and men on a wholly equal footing, doesn't imply that men and women are the same, "equal" and "same" aren't synonyms.



Exactly the point, an Airman and Airwoman can be equal without pretending they are the same thing by giving them the same name.
#1885855
It’s still not about including men and women, or saying they are the same.

Men and Women have always been included.

This is about including the other new genders.

If you identify as “Xid”.
It’s sexist to refer to you as a man or a woman, there’s laws about it, and the RAF can be done for it.

It’s about the “others”.

Like someone said earlier, this is why they are spending their professional lives taking out these dated sexist gender terms, what about zermites? They need including you see.

Someone needs to stand up for the zermites, zermites are people too you know.

(btw, I’m a man and I identify as one too! :D :lol: )
#1885856
nallen wrote:
Cessna571 wrote:
nallen wrote: (Me, I've been quietly making the texts I edit for a living as gender neutral as possible for the last 30 years.)


This is the bit I don’t understand tbh.

We have someone at work who does this.

Edmund Hilary was a man, I don’t get why he shouldn’t be referred to with male pronouns?



Quite right; it would absurd to refer to him otherwise. But that is not what is at issue.

<Slight thread drift, inspired by your choice of Hilary: James Morris [he], was the journalist on the 1953 Everest expedition; later Jan Morris [she]. >


Nope, fail.

You’ve referred to the person as “he / she”

Remember, it’s “they” now.

You’ve also used the word “him”,

You need to rethink that.

This IS the point, as I say, all documents need to be gender neutral now apparently. (So I’m told)

I thought you said you’ve got this?
It was you who said you agreed with it and you’ve been doing it for some time now.
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885869
avtur3 wrote:Not aviation related, but sort of related to the topic.

Today I learned that when a child misbehaves one is supposed to be very clear in saying that the 'behavior' is naughty as distinct from the child being naughty.

So, when some aspect of behaviour (say, one's grandchild) is witnessed you are not supposed say "you are naughty, don't do that"

Apparently what you have to say is "that is naughty" (i.e. the behaviour) so don't do that.


Same with management.

There are one or two whackos trying to change peado to 'minor-attracted-person' because there is too much stigma with the original term :cyclopsani: :roll: it's harmful to their emotions... Who really cares. Some things need stigma.

I blame social media. You wouldn't hear it and they wouldn't get the time if day. More woke safe space rubbish. :lol:

Who put the children in charge.
Last edited by StratoTramp on Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1885870
StratoTramp wrote:
avtur3 wrote:..

So, when some aspect of behaviour (say, one's grandchild) is witnessed you are not supposed say "you are naughty, don't do that"

Apparently what you have to say is "that is naughty" (i.e. the behaviour) so don't do that.


Same with management.


yes, naughty managers have to be put in their place :wink:

[.. and it's a Good Thing that it now seems to happen more than it used to be :thumright: , which I suppose some including such managers might denounce as 'wokery' :? ]
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885871
Nah I agree with that always name the behaviour. If you say someone is a low performer you aren't going to have a productive convo. I don't think this is woke, just effective.

Worrying about 'minor-attracted-persons' getting upset is woke though. Criminals should be upset to some degree (short of capital punishment) mostly :lol:
User avatar
By nallen
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885874
Cessna571 wrote:
nallen wrote:
Cessna571 wrote:
This is the bit I don’t understand tbh.

We have someone at work who does this.

Edmund Hilary was a man, I don’t get why he shouldn’t be referred to with male pronouns?



Quite right; it would absurd to refer to him otherwise. But that is not what is at issue.

<Slight thread drift, inspired by your choice of Hilary: James Morris [he], was the journalist on the 1953 Everest expedition; later Jan Morris [she]. >


Nope, fail.

You’ve referred to the person as “he / she”

Remember, it’s “they” now.

You’ve also used the word “him”,

You need to rethink that.

This IS the point, as I say, all documents need to be gender neutral now apparently. (So I’m told)

I thought you said you’ve got this?
It was you who said you agreed with it and you’ve been doing it for some time now.


It's not all documents; it's documents in which it's relevant.

No publisher, client, author, etc., that I have worked for has ever suggested that named individuals should be referred to as "they" (unless it's someone who has specifically requested this to be their preferred pronoun -- a relatively new practice).

If I'm writing/editing something generic (textbook, manual, advert, brochure, etc.), then yes, I would avoid making text gender specific.
kanga, Ben K liked this
#1885911
nallen wrote:My game of bingo that I started on seeing this thread is going very well. I predicted the following:

Someone would invoke "aviatrix" -- bingo. (I had a side bet this would be in the first five posts, but just missed that.) (Gendered suffixes are so last century…)

The word "woke" would appear -- bingo.

Someone would mention "the dictionary" -- bingo.

Someone would say "men and women are not the same" -- bingo.

Devastatingly witty words in which "man" has been replaced by something else would appear -- bingo, bingo.

Language evolves: sometimes easily; sometimes clumsily. (Me, I've been quietly making the texts I edit for a living as gender neutral as possible for the last 30 years.)

For next week's linguistic debate, we could discuss why ships and aircraft shouldn't be referred to as "she" …


So what happens when you reach Bingo fuel state? :lol:
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885950
It is well known that I’m not a fan of political correctness but sensible use of neutral language serves to emphasise to a degree the importance of getting rid of undesirable attitudes.

So infantile examples of unhelpful language are frankly fatuous.
kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13