RSSB gendered language: Pilotman now called Pilot

[DynamicSpirit]

It takes literal seconds to re-write the rule book by simply using a find and replace tool.

CTRL + F will work on the bulk of word processors

If you think that's all it takes to rewrite a rule book that is - remember - concerned with safety on places that can literally be a matter of life and death, then I hope you don't work in any position where you are responsible for the safety of others.

 

[JamesT]

It takes literal seconds to re-write the rule book by simply using a find and replace tool.

CTRL + F will work on the bulk of word processors

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==


Find and replace tools will do that for you in almost an instant

Hah, that way leads to errors such as a book being de-Americanised by doing things like replacing pants with trousers. Anyone know what occutrousers are?

 

[py_megapixel]

How about my profoundly autistic brother is trans (it tends to run with autism) and my family is dealing with how best to accommodate that, that because it’s difficult to know how much is appropriate to put an adult through when they have a mental age or someone far younger.

And are you trying to suggest that every autistic person, or every trans person, has "a mental age of someone far younger"?
Because this could certainly be read that way, and that would be false (or perhaps a better way to put it would be nonsensical) and arguably quite offensive.

(Edit: not intended as an insult or anything, just pointing out that there is potential for misunderstanding and requesting clarity).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How much time do you think that takes and what other very important duties have been neglected by making the change, do you think?

Obviously I don't know how much time it would take in this particular instance - I have no knowledge of RSSB procedures etc. But even one hour spent making a change to satisfy people who want the English language to be something other than it actually is is an hour that you're not spending doing something that might actually be useful! (And given this appears to be an important safety document, I'd expect it to take an awful lot more than an hour to rewrite and check it).

 

[Fokx]

Hah, that way leads to errors such as a book being de-Americanised by doing things like replacing pants with trousers. Anyone know what occutrousers are?

Not at all if used wisely. I can’t even count the amount of times I’ve used the phrase “pilotman” in a sentence to mean something other than the new term “pilot”.

I’m not suggesting at all that you just let the system auto-correct itself like many boom publishers have done in the past.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Stoker is the inclusive term

No, 'stoker' is the American term.

 

[py_megapixel]

No, 'stoker' is the American term.

Can't something be both inclusive and of American origin?

 

[InkyScrolls]

And are you trying to suggest that every autistic person, or every trans person, has "a mental age of someone far younger"?

Because this could certainly be read that way, and that would be false (or perhaps a better way to put it would be nonsensical) and arguably quite offensive.

Don't be ridiculous. That's obviously not his intention.

 

[Fokx]

If you think that's all it takes to rewrite a rule book that is - remember - concerned with safety on places that can literally be a matter of life and death, then I hope you don't work in any position where you are responsible for the safety of others.

It is all it physically takes when changing someone’s job title. It’s not a case of letting a computer simply auto-correct itself and running wild, it’s similar to updating a database, you correct only what you need to do so, and importantly proof-read

I am responsible for the safety of others on the railway with a completely clear safety record, thanks for the concern though.

 

[AlterEgo]

Obviously I don't know how much time it would take in this particular instance - I have no knowledge of RSSB procedures etc. But even one hour spent making a change to satisfy people who want the English language to be something other than it actually is is an hour that you're not spending doing something that might actually be useful!

Words and phrases change over time, that is just how language works. I am sure this is not the first time RSSB have had to change terms in the Rule Book.

"Pilot" is a perfectly cromulent word which actually better describes what the (non-gender specific) employee does, and is, than "Pilotman". Other industries use the word pilot in a gender neutral way. I don't see why the railway should be different.

 

[Fokx]

No, 'stoker' is the American term.

And gender-neutral

 

[Scott1]

It’s a battle to come to terms with. I agree with being accommodating.

If you agree with being accommodating then I'm mystified trying to understand why you take issue with calling someone they/them?

 

[Starmill]

The RSSB publish a lot of documents, if you have to load each one up to run CTRL + F it's going to take some time.

Sure, so it's two hours of work for one person to find and replace and sense check each replacement, rather than five seconds. Does that really make any difference?

 

[py_megapixel]

Don't be ridiculous. That's obviously not his intention.

It may be obvious to you. But if this thread demonstrates anything, it's that the same semblance of words can mean very different things for different people. That is perfectly natural and it isn't changing any time soon, so it is best that people try to be as unambiguous as possible with their wording, particularly when discussing sensitive issues.

It's not a good idea to assume that your interpretation of the world is the same as everyone else's.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't intending to insult the person I quoted & I have edited my post to clarify this - apologies).

 

[InkyScrolls]

"Pilot" is a perfectly cromulent word

Which is derived from the phrase "Person In Lieu Of Token", so "pilotman" has always been somewhat tautological.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Words and phrases change over time, that is just how language works. I am sure this is not the first time RSSB have had to change terms in the Rule Book.

Sure, languages change over time. But usually, that's an organic change that happens, typically because people (particularly young people) individually hear and like some different way of saying something and so that way catches on and becomes more and more popular. And eventually, so many people are using the new way of saying whatever it is that the old way dies out simply because no-one is using it any more.

But what's happening here with these kinds of changes - such as abandoning the term 'manned' is different from natural language evolution: It's more akin to a political campaign in which one group of people is attempting to enforce a change in the language that isn't universally desired.

 

[zwk500]

Which is derived from the phrase "Person In Lieu Of Token", so "pilotman" has always been somewhat tautological.

Are you sure this isn't a backronym, and the name Pilot actually comes from somewhere else, like maritime practice?

 

[Christmas]

I fail to see why anyone would be making a such a big deal about RSSB choosing to remove the last three letters from the word pilotman, it's hardly transcribing the Old Testament. The decision has been made so we don't need to worry about the person who eventually implements the final change to current documents. This one should be a bit easier than replacing PiCoP and PiCoW with CoSS.

Anyone who legitimately has a bee in 'their' bonnet about this or whether an individual chooses to have their pronouns on a name badge really ought to take a look at themselves.

You're not going to win this war, no matter how much you attempt to legitimise your bigotry.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sure, languages change over time. But usually, that's an organic change that happens, typically because people (particularly young people) individually hear and like some different way of saying something and so that way catches on and becomes more and more popular. And eventually, so many people are using the new way of saying whatever it is that the old way dies out simply because no-one is using it any more.

But what's happening here with these kinds of changes - such as abandoning the term 'manned' is different from natural language evolution: It's more akin to a political campaign in which one group of people is attempting to enforce a change in the language that isn't universally desired.

I get that, but I don’t think this is battleground to expend political capital on. In the grand scheme of things this really doesn’t matter and in fact makes more sense than it did before.

I’m generally all for gender neutral terms where they can be justified. Women do make up a very large part of the workforce and it doesn’t seem a very onerous adjustment.

 

[endofthetunnel]

But what's happening here with these kinds of changes - such as abandoning the term 'manned' is different from natural language evolution: It's more akin to a political campaign in which one group of people is attempting to enforce a change in the language that isn't universally desired.

Not really - language has already changed away from gendered terms such as ‘manned’ to ‘staffed’ or ‘crewed’ etc in many circumstances, and now the rule books are being updated to match that.
It may be that certain people haven’t moved with the times with their language, but overall, the language and acceptance of it has already changed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You're not going to win this war, no matter how much you attempt to legitimise your bigotry.

How on Earth do you equate someone objecting to enforced language changes with 'bigotry'? That looks to me like at best an appallingly dismissive attitude towards those whom you disagree with.

 

[Christmas]

How on Earth do you equate someone objecting to enforced language changes with 'bigotry'? That looks to me like at best an appallingly dismissive attitude towards those whom you disagree with.

It's not enforced language change, it's a change to the terminology of a role on the railway.

By your logic, even giving the role the name 'pilotman' was enforcing language on those working under the rule book in the first place.

 

[Need2]

Anyone who can get upset, feel excluded or generally feel picked on because of words like pilotman, fireman etc needs to chill out a bit.
It’s only a word.

 

[Christmas]

Anyone who can get upset, feel excluded or generally feel picked on because of words like pilotman, fireman etc needs to chill out a bit.
It’s only a word.

WHOOSH!!
The point of the change has just gone right over your head.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’m generally all for gender neutral terms where they can be justified. Women do make up a very large part of the workforce and it doesn’t seem a very onerous adjustment.

I think the problem is - and this is a criticism of the wider movement to change the language, not of the RSSB in particular - that the change is being forced on people, not all of whom wish it.

Someone - particularly an older person - who uses the term 'manned' is almost certainly not trying to be offensive or exclusive: They are simply using the language that they have been brought up to speak. For example, to me, the term 'manned' *is* completely gender-neutral, and can apply equally to a man or a woman - because that's how the English language that I was taught and grew up with works and it's therefore how I speak. Someone who insists that the term is somehow exclusive is quite simply failing to understand the meaning of the word. Now if that person or any other individual prefers to use the word 'staffed' or 'crewed' instead, then to my mind that's totally fine: In the end, as long as your meaning is clear, it seems reasonable that people should be allowed to use whatever words they are most comfortable with, and we ought to respect that.

But that respect needs to go both ways, and at the moment, in much of our culture, it doesn't. I totally respect the right of anyone else to use the word - say - 'crewed'. But the impression being given is that there's no equal respect for people who prefer to say 'manned' (which in most cases will be simply because that's the version of English that they have always known). Effectively, in much of popular culture, people - particularly older people, are being implicitly shamed for doing nothing more than speaking the way they naturally speak without any ill intentions. That is at best unkind and at worst discriminatory towards many older people.

Now of course, unless anyone here was actually involved with the particular RSSB changes that we are discussing, it's impossible for us to know the details of how/why they decided to make those changes. But it certainly does seem to be part of that same movement towards dismissing the language that many people have always used. And if that is the case, it is concerning - quite apart from the issue that time has been spent (wasted) on making a change to rules whose meaning - presumably - was already perfectly clear.

 

[endofthetunnel]

They may not be trying to be offensive, and indeed they aren’t per se, but it is exclusionary whether they mean it or not. Just as police man or signal man is gendered and exclusionary- whether they mean it to be or not.
And so, those who are responsible for the language we use on the railway are making efforts for it to be less exclusionary and remove the chance of it being offensive. And then the next generation won’t have been ‘brought up’ using exclusionary terms.

The rule book should be non gendered and that shouldn’t bother anyone - just like drivers used to be referred to as ‘He’ in the rules, but this changed and the world kept turning.

 

[Christmas]

I think the problem is - and this is a criticism of the wider movement to change the language, not of the RSSB in particular - that the change is being forced on people, not all of whom wish it.

Someone - particularly an older person - who uses the term 'manned' is almost certainly not trying to be offensive or exclusive: They are simply using the language that they have been brought up to speak. For example, to me, the term 'manned' *is* completely gender-neutral, and can apply equally to a man or a woman - because that's how the English language that I was taught and grew up with works and it's therefore how I speak. Someone who insists that the term is somehow exclusive is quite simply failing to understand the meaning of the word. Now if that person or any other individual prefers to use the word 'staffed' or 'crewed' instead, then to my mind that's totally fine: In the end, as long as your meaning is clear, it seems reasonable that people should be allowed to use whatever words they are most comfortable with, and we ought to respect that.

But that respect needs to go both ways, and at the moment, in much of our culture, it doesn't. I totally respect the right of anyone else to use the word - say - 'crewed'. But the impression being given is that there's no equal respect for people who prefer to say 'manned' (which in most cases will be simply because that's the version of English that they have always known). Effectively, people, particularly older people, are being shamed for doing nothing more than speaking the way they naturally speak without any ill intentions. That is at best unkind and at worst discriminatory towards many older people.

Now of course, unless anyone here was actually involved with the particular RSSB changes that we are discussing, it's impossible for us to know the details of how/why they decided to make those changes. But it certainly does seem to be part of that same movement towards dismissing the language that many people have always used. And if that is the case, it is concerning - quite apart from the issue that time has been spent (wasted) on making a change to rules whose meaning - presumably - was already perfectly clear.

So is it still okay for you to refer to black people by the old terms that you 'grew up with ' or the English that you have known?

 

[High Dyke]

What next, "operating personuals"? Don't we have more important things to worry about?

Some seemingly don't.

I still answer the phone, at work, as signalman. I was born a male therefore I am a man. I also work with female colleagues who I consider to be signal(wo)men. Does that make me a non-politically correct dinosaur?

If anyone can show me the gender 'ler' then I'll reconsider my position.

 

[Need2]

WHOOSH!!
The point of the change has just gone right over your head.

No it hasn’t but perhaps you could explain it to me then?

 

[Fokx]

I think the problem is - and this is a criticism of the wider movement to change the language, not of the RSSB in particular - that the change is being forced on people, not all of whom wish it.

Change isn’t being forced upon anyone. Change just happens, it’s how life works.

Effectively, people, particularly older people, are being shamed for doing nothing more than speaking the way they naturally speak without any ill intentions. That is at best unkind and at worst discriminatory towards many older people.

That’s not the case at all.

Would you still find it acceptable for racist terms to still be used because they were once deemed acceptable? Or fruity language to describe someone who is LGBT perhaps? I certainly wouldn’t.