I was brought up to call them mate, stop putting silly analogies forward.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RSSB gendered language: Pilotman now called Pilot
- Thread starter adam_haddad40
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
endofthetunnel
Member
That’s entirely the point! There is no ‘ler’ gender!
You can happily call yourself a signalman.
But your job title is signaller because there is no requirement to be a particular gender to do the job.
You actually use the term 'signalwoman' to refer to your colleague?
What is this new buzzword ’exclusionary’ all about? What does it mean?
How is calling someone of any gender ……….man excluding them from anything?
The dictionary definition certainly defines the word as nothing like the context some people use it in.
No one is being excluded from anything.
Won’t be long before the sphincter police come along and shut this down!
endofthetunnel
Member
Well I think you can work out the meaning here
Defining a job as a gender - male for instance - has the effect of excluding non- males from doing that job. Therefore - exclusionary.
Defining a job as a gender - male for instance - has the effect of excluding non- males from doing that job. Therefore - exclusionary.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's not the same thing. If I've understood you correctly, you're referring to terms that have always been used in a derogatory sense. They are no longer acceptable because we now (correctly) generally agree everyone is a valuable human being, whatever their sexuality or ethnicity, and that it's wrong to refer to someone in a derogatory way.
By contrast, the term 'manned' has never (as far as I'm aware) had a derogatory meaning. It's simply a word that, at least over the last few decades, has meant something like, not automated/having a human being running it, and which many people, particularly many older people, therefore understand and use in that sense.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Signalman is exclusionary because it suggests that only a man can be a signaller. We all know anyone can be a signaller, so the job title doesn't need a gender attached to it for no useful reason.
I am surprised so many people are that upset at altering the language in a book to be more inclusive.
InkyScrolls
On Moderation
So you're saying that, in this example, women are incapable of doing the job simply because it has 'man' in the title? What a strange, weak-willed bunch you must think women are.
How the hell is it defining a job as a gender?
A gender is a gender and a role is a role!
So historically, woman (or those in between!) haven’t applied for jobs with ‘man’ in the title because they thought it was for men only?
Stating males it females only would be exclusionary
Ending a word with man does not exclude anyone.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree that the gender attachment is not needed at all but putting ‘man’ at the end of a job title does not exclude.
Where does it imply, apart from in your mind, that only a man can do the job?
Last edited:
Historically they would indeed have been barred from some jobs because of their gender, yes. Pleanty of people will remember when women drivers were allowed.How the hell is it defining a job as a gender?
A gender is a gender and a role is a role!
So historically, woman (or those in between!) haven’t applied for jobs with ‘man’ in the title because they thought it was for men only?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where does it imply, apart from in your mind, that only a man can do the job?
InkyScrolls
On Moderation
Patent nonsense. The term 'man' has always been used as a synonym for 'human' as well as meaning 'male human' specifically.
No it doesn’t need a gender attached, I totally agree but………..
How the hell is it defining a job as a gender?
A gender is a gender and a role is a role!
So historically, woman (or those in between!) haven’t applied for jobs with ‘man’ in the title because they thought it was for men only?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where does it imply, apart from in your mind, that only a man can do the job?
I'm afraid we have reached an impass. Your not going to accept my stance on this matter, and I'm afraid I don't really accept yours. I understand why you don't agree with me, but I don't think we are likely to ever see eye to eye on this one. Given you have resorted to calling my view nonsense I think we'd better leave it at that. Have a good evening
jfowkes
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,271
No it doesn’t need a gender attached, I totally agree but………..
How the hell is it defining a job as a gender?
A gender is a gender and a role is a role!
So historically, woman (or those in between!) haven’t applied for jobs with ‘man’ in the title because they thought it was for men only?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where does it imply, apart from in your mind, that only a man can do the job?
The change is about perception of the role than any one person or their ability or intention to do the job.
We are all subtly influenced by language and its use. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the suffix -man, even when meant to be gender neutral, carries an conscious or unconscious bias for some people towards that job being for a male person. Not in every circumstance, not in every usage, not for every reader or listener. But if there's the possibility of that bias, making a simple change to avoid it is a reasonable adaptation.
endofthetunnel
Member
So just to flip the argument for a moment as there seems to be no convincing some people.
Would you think it odd if I, as a white cis male, described myself as a signalwoman? Or a police lady?
Might a man be less likely to apply for a job looking after children at lunchtime as a ‘dinner lady’?
Times change, language and attitudes too, to reflect values updating, meanings altering, etc.
The perception here that a job is only for one gender is not right, and has been removed. It is a strange hill to die on to object to that.
Would you think it odd if I, as a white cis male, described myself as a signalwoman? Or a police lady?
Might a man be less likely to apply for a job looking after children at lunchtime as a ‘dinner lady’?
Times change, language and attitudes too, to reflect values updating, meanings altering, etc.
The perception here that a job is only for one gender is not right, and has been removed. It is a strange hill to die on to object to that.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
It seems odd only because there is no sense in the English language of the suffix, '-woman' referring to either gender: We normally understand it to exclusively mean, females (In contrast to the suffix '-man', which can refer to either gender). If (hypothetically) in the English language, '-woman' commonly did refer to either gender, then it probably wouldn't seem odd at all.
And, I suppose the flip side to that is that some people didn’t think “pilotman” was either very good English or particularly inclusive, and the status quo was equally unwelcome.
No, there should be one, unambiguous term in the Rule Book to describe someone’s job and it should be one which is inclusive, where that is possible.
endofthetunnel
Member
That ‘sense’ of it, though, comes from generation after generation of men holding all the positions of power and responsibility and so it became accepted language. It’s not and has never been short for human, it absolutely was a police man, fire man or a signal man because they were male jobs.
Similarly a crossing was ‘manned’ because there was a man at the crossing.
Whether you or anyone still specifically uses the terms in that way isn’t the point. The point is that people who aren’t male can feel like they can’t or shouldn’t do those jobs because they don’t fit the title, and hopefully as time goes on the usage will change to reflect that
Similarly a crossing was ‘manned’ because there was a man at the crossing.
Whether you or anyone still specifically uses the terms in that way isn’t the point. The point is that people who aren’t male can feel like they can’t or shouldn’t do those jobs because they don’t fit the title, and hopefully as time goes on the usage will change to reflect that
If it's only a word, why don't you "chill out" about the new one?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What's this supposed to mean? It sounds like you're using hyperbole here. Or just talking complete nonsense.
InkyScrolls
On Moderation
I'm afraid you're wrong there. Before the word 'human' was borrowed from French 'man' was the only word used to mean a member of the human species - an adult male was, going back far enough, a 'wær' (whence 'werewolf').
It’s not the word, as I said earlier.
It’s the use of the word exclusionary which is totally wrong.
And that people think it makes the world a better place.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Kilopylae
Member
Oh give over! If it mattered as little as you claim it did then you wouldn't be getting so angry about the change.
Quite.
In fairness to people who find it difficult (and speaking as someone who uses they/them for themselves), there is a difference between using they as an impersonal/generic singular and using it for a known individual. "The judge adjusted their wig" sounds more natural to many than (say) "my friend Rob told me they were angry" (which might sound more like Rob was talking about a person or persons unknown).
endofthetunnel
Member
I’m not debating in general.
I am saying that fireman, policeman, signalman were all gendered job titles, they absolutely weren’t just from the abbreviations from human.
Hence they have been changed
InkyScrolls
On Moderation
But they aren't. The suffix '-man' is gender neutral, applicable to both genders.
zwk500
Veteran Member
To those to whom it matters, it's important. To me it makes no difference to say 'staffed' or 'crewed' than 'manned', and so I don't mind changing it if it helps people feel more comfortable.
Inclusivity is unlikely to be improved by lecturing people on points of grammatical pedantry. Is it that much to talk of Fire Crews, Police Officers, and Signallers? It's a minor compromise that makes some people feel more comfortable doing or applying for the job.
Nobody suggests distinguishing between Guards and Guardesses, because that's obviously gendered. So why not remove the less obvious gendering as well. And, by the way, this is one of those things where the perception is more important than the academic integrity. If women feel excluded by the suffix -man, it doesn't really matter if they're interpreting the origin wrongly, they still feel excluded.
- Status