• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

adam_haddad40

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2022
Messages
21
Location
Northumberland
Pleased to see the RSSB has finally removed gender-specific language from the rule book with Pilotman becoming Pilot and "manned" (i.e. manned level crossings) becoming "manually controlled".
 

Attachments

  • pilotman becomes pilot.png
    pilotman becomes pilot.png
    233.6 KB · Views: 120
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,403
Location
Bolton
I was once told that this change wouldn't be made because the term 'pilot' was likely to cause confusion with the term for what's commonly known as a 'route conductor'.

I'm pleased however that this doesn't appear to be the case any more.
 

Need2

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
595
Pleased to see the RSSB has finally removed gender-specific language from the rule book with Pilotman becoming Pilot and "manned" (i.e. manned level crossings) becoming "manually controlled".
Why are you pleased?
The words are not insulting, derogatory or offensive.
Plenty of more important things to worry about.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,802
Location
Yorkshire
I've never heard of "manned" being considered a gendered term.
It's not really. A colleague refers to the space she is in charge of supervising being "manned" for example. That said, it's use is probably declining and one day the meaning of this term may be deemed to have changed; this can be a gradual process.

I am in favour of terms that could reasonably considered gendered and could easily be made gender neutral being changed, for example signaller is a better term than signalman and it is only right (in my opinion) that the grade has been renamed.

However I can understand that this can be taken too far.

The problem is that people on both extremes take their views too far and are unwilling to come to any sort of compromise.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,403
Location
Bolton
Why are you pleased?
The words are not insulting, derogatory or offensive.
Nobody has suggested that they were insulting, derogatory or offensive. The reason for it is stated to be to make a working environment more inclusive and to remove the risk of deterring applications for employment or promotion - why don't you like those things?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

By that logic, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread at all. Don't you have more important things to worry about?
Indeed. It's difficult to see how revising the documents in this way uses up any extra resources that could have been used for anything else. They do have to be reviewed anyway and it doesn't cost anything extra to go through these processes.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,802
Location
Yorkshire
Why are you pleased?
The words are not insulting, derogatory or offensive.
This is a red herring; it's about being inclusive.
Plenty of more important things to worry about.
That isn't really a logical argument; people are welcome to discuss topics and anyone who comments on a topic isn't really in a strong position to suggest the topic doesn't merit discussion.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,892
Location
Reston City Centre
I've never heard of "manned" being considered a gendered term.

I know that to fight “Mano et Mano” comes from “hand to hand” (like Manual Labour), rather than “m specifically “man vs man”, so I presumed that “manually controlled” similarly comes from something you yourself operate?

Obviously the meaning of some words changes a bit over time, we’re seeing that with “Queer” at the moment, which has evolved a bit since the 1980s, but I think there’s a distinction between “man” (meaning bloke) and “manual” (meaning something that a person does with their own hands)

This can cause confusion when people misunderstand the history - e.g. my understanding was that ‘man hole’ essentially meant a cover in the road/pavement that you had to lift up with your own hands to open, i.e. a contraction of “manual hole”, rather than saying it was something only guys could go down? Whereas advertising a job for a “weather man” would suggest something that excludes 52% of the population?
 

66701GBRF

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2017
Messages
839
So are we going to see a sudden influx of women applying for the role following this change then?
 

godfreycomplex

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
What next, "operating personuals"? Don't we have more important things to worry about?
This is important. Other things are also important. It’s not a competition.

I bring this up to inform people and provide context, rather than seek attention, but I’m a non binary person who works as a signaller and this decision has made me feel substantially more comfortable and happier in doing parts of my day to day work, just the same as the removal of gendered language in my job title did a few years ago.
There are several other people in similar positions in my line of work who feel the same.
I hope this first hand experience can inform readers of this thread.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
31,355
Location
Fenny Stratford
This change is fairly meaningless and doesn't do much to tackle real issues of inequality, lack of diversity or lack of access but it should annoy the culture warriors so I am all for it. They will be more florid than usual.
 
Joined
15 Apr 2020
Messages
355
Location
Wakefield
It’s a valid change, relatively simple to do and shows a commitment from the RSSB to dealing with what they can. It’s sensible and inoffensive, and I know some female crossing keepers at ‘manned’ level crossings very pleased with this small change.

I’m confident this thread however will quickly become offensive and divisive as usual.
 

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,827
Location
London
I am in favour of terms that could reasonably considered gendered and could easily be made gender neutral being changed, for example signaller is a better term than signalman and it is only right (in my opinion) that the grade has been renamed.

I’d generally agree with that.

However I can understand that this can be taken too far.

Signalman to signaller works fine, as does pilotman to pilot but it can certainly go too far when it gets to the stage of altering the meaning of words to the point they’re no longer recognisable in their original sense, or making them grammatically incorrect, eg referring to individuals as “they” always grates with me, as it’s a plural form.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Pleased to see the RSSB has finally removed gender-specific language from the rule book with Pilotman becoming Pilot and "manned" (i.e. manned level crossings) becoming "manually controlled".

Welcome to the forum.

Out of interest, what made you choose this as your first topic of discussion?
 
Last edited:

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,290
Location
Stevenage
This can cause confusion when people misunderstand the history - e.g. my understanding was that ‘man hole’ essentially meant a cover in the road/pavement that you had to lift up with your own hands to open, i.e. a contraction of “manual hole”, rather than saying it was something only guys could go down?
The simpler 'man+hole' seems a lot more likely.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
2,049
Location
South Staffordshire
Nobody has suggested that they were insulting, derogatory or offensive. The reason for it is stated to be to make a working environment more inclusive and to remove the risk of deterring applications for employment or promotion - why don't you like those things?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Indeed. It's difficult to see how revising the documents in this way uses up any extra resources that could have been used for anything else. They do have to be reviewed anyway and it doesn't cost anything extra to go through these processes.
We are talking about straightforward industry language. In the Control office I work in we used "manned up" several times a day or even a shift. Example is 5Z22 (special ECS) manned up ? There is no diagram for it as it is a VSTP special so Route controllers, Traincrew Controls and Dtuy Manager use "manned up" as the most succinct way of establishing a movement is covered.

To be honest I don't think it is sexist derogatory or offensive - it is simply a term which the industry have traditionally used - just like "bobby" for a signaller. Another one we use is "round the houses" which in our Control is a train running around the Birmingham suburbs to free a platform whilst doing a set swap. It is a traditional industry phrase which we know and understand.
 

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,827
Location
London
manned up

“Crewed” would achieve the same and be shorter?

To be honest I don't think it is sexist derogatory or offensive - it is simply a term which the industry have traditionally used - just like "bobby" for a signaller. Another one we use is "round the houses" which in our Control is a train running around the Birmingham suburbs to free a platform whilst doing a set swap. It is a traditional industry phrase which we know and understand.

Agreed, albeit those aren’t gender specific terms.

It’ll take a long time to change on the railway - we still talk about “London men”, “the night man” etc. which is just the accepted vernacular: there’s certainly no intention to make people feel excluded.
 

ComUtoR

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,571
Location
UK
We are talking about straightforward industry language. In the Control office I work in we used "manned up" several times a day or even a shift. Example is 5Z22 (special ECS) manned up ? There is no diagram for it as it is a VSTP special so Route controllers, Traincrew Controls and Dtuy Manager use "manned up" as the most succinct way of establishing a movement is covered.

"Crewed" might be a better alternative. I'll electronic message the RSSB forthwith.
 
Joined
15 Apr 2020
Messages
355
Location
Wakefield
To be honest I don't think it is sexist derogatory or offensive - it is simply a term which the industry have traditionally used - just like "bobby" for a signaller.
I suspect you also remember when it was signal man not signaller yet you have accepted that change?

This is just another one of those type of things, if it offends one less person or discourages one fewer applicant then it’s worthwhile.
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,304
Location
Liverpool
Why are you pleased?
The words are not insulting, derogatory or offensive.
Plenty of more important things to worry about.
I'm not female but if I was I think I would object to being excluded, or treated as an honorary man. It seems insulting to my mind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

referring to individuals as “they” always grates with me, as it’s a plural form.
The English language has done that since at least the time of Chaucer.
 
Last edited:

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
2,049
Location
South Staffordshire
I suspect you also remember when it was signal man not signaller yet you have accepted that change?

This is just another one of those type of things, if it offends one less person or discourages one fewer applicant then it’s worthwhile.
Not a question of accepting or not accepting at all. It is what it is, but while we are at it what do preserved railways call the person who shovels the coal into the fire on a steam loco ?.
Just curious
 

Scott1

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2015
Messages
383
Personally I prefer gender neutral language. I also get misgendered at least once a week at work, which doesn't really bother me, but I can see why it would do.
 
Joined
15 Apr 2020
Messages
355
Location
Wakefield
Not a question of accepting or not accepting at all. It is what it is, but while we are at it what do preserved railways call the person who shovels the coal into the fire on a steam loco ?.
Just curious
I’m not sure why me agreeing with removing one gender specific term means that I have to solve all the others or accept none of them.

I know Fire man is the term currently used, I suppose person, officer or engineer might all work. Fortunately the mainline rules don’t include the term so it’s not one I’ll need to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top