RSSB gendered language: Pilotman now called Pilot

[43066]

The English language has done that since at least the time of Chaucer.

I realise language changes over time, but generally not quite so quickly, and usually involving shades of meaning, rather than abrupt changes in grammatical rules in response to a vociferous political lobby.

I also get misgendered at least once a week at work

The use of gender neutral terms isn’t necessarily going to address that, though?

 

[bluegoblin7]

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.

Singular they which has been in use since at least 1375? Oh dear. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177

 

[Mag_seven]

Don't we have more important things to worry about?

If we have got more important things to worry about why get angry over a change of terminology?

 

[Scott1]

The use of gender neutral terms isn’t necessarily going to address that, though?

No, and in my case at least wouldn't make any odds since its my hair that throws people! But it all helps I reckon, especially removing that subconscious element in job adverts, signaller instead of signal man for example.

 

[InkyScrolls]

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

Fireman, regardless of which gender the fireman belongs to.

 

[Starmill]

To be honest I don't think it is sexist derogatory or offensive - it is simply a term which the industry have traditionally used

To reiterate, nobody said that it was sexist, 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.

 

[43066]

Singular they which has been in use since at least 1375? Oh dear. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177

Hardly in common usage, “they” generally means plural…. If you aren’t aware of that, oh dear indeed!

No, and in my case at least wouldn't make any odds since its my hair that throws people! But it all helps I reckon, especially removing that subconscious element in job adverts, signaller instead of signal man for example.

I agree language should evolve be more inclusive, it doesn’t have to become a hot potato. This has been assumed on this thread to be a trans issue, whereas it isn’t exclusively that at all. It’s very much also about women (who identify as women) on the railway!

I’ll leave it there, this is not a rabbit hole I wish to go down and sensible debate on the subject is impossible….

 

[AlterEgo]

“They” is always used for people of undetermined or unknown gender.

“I have to drop my bags at the airport later for my flight. The check in agent is responsible for making sure they validate my ID before I board”. For example.

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

To reiterate, nobody said that it was sexist, 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.

Indeed. The general culture of the working railway has made it a more inclusive and welcoming place to women and LGBT people.

 

[Starmill]

“They” is always used for people of undetermined or unknown gender.

“I have to drop my bags at the airport later for my flight. The check in agent is responsible for making sure they validate my ID before I board”. For example.

Precisely - its common use in that way means that it stopped being a plural form a long time ago.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

There is a greater push for inclusivity at my TOC, not everyone likes it and I'm sure the majority of those that don't like it, don't actually understand the reasons for it. We're still having the 'everybody' Vs 'ladies and gentlemen' announcement discussion!

I'm all for the changes inclusivity has created and in my mind there are many more changes to come as it has a far greater positive reaction to more people than a negative reaction from those that don't like/understand it.

I am pushing for culture and international passenger training at my depot, something that was very successful at my last employer. Can guarantee it will be the same people who don't participate in that as don't like inclusivity in the workplace.

 

[66701GBRF]

Precisely - its common use in that way means that it stopped being a plural form a long time ago.

Just because it is also used to describe non gender, does not mean it has stopped being used as a plural form.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just because it is also used to describe non gender, does not mean it has stopped being used as a plural term.

“they” simply has myriad applications, even referring to non-people “I dropped my bag full of strawberries in and they went all over the floor”, and corporate plurals “LNER have changed their ticket policy, I think they have made a bad move here”. Etc etc.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Hardly in common usage, “they” generally means plural…. If you aren’t aware of that, oh dear indeed!

Singular they has been in common usage for centuries, most commonly where the gender of an individual is not known. I can guarantee that you will have used it in such a way without realising. You are being obtuse (and exclusionary) by pretending otherwise.

 

[43066]

Singular they has been in common usage for centuries, most commonly where the gender of an individual is not known. I can guarantee that you will have used it in such a way without realising. You are being obtuse (and exclusionary) by pretending otherwise.

I disagree (as does my peer group, as does my girlfriend) and I’m not being remotely “exclusionary”.

Get used to the fact that some people you encounter won’t share your views.

 

[Starmill]

Just because it is also used to describe non gender, does not mean it has stopped being used as a plural form.

OK, perhaps what I should have said was it hasn't been an exclusively plural form for a long time.

However, there are cases where it's ambiguous, so using they doesn't clarify either way if it's singular or plural, which is what I was trying to get at. Of course you're absolutely right that if it's a known plural, they is still quite correct.

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

“they” simply has myriad applications, even referring to non-people “I dropped my bag full of strawberries in and they went all over the floor”, and corporate plurals “LNER have changed their ticket policy, I think they have made a bad move here”. Etc etc.

Precisely. And of course sometimes people use "they" for a government or other authority, but when they don't know which one, or even when they don't even know the subject, for example "they shouldn't keep changing the road markings".

 

[bluegoblin7]

I’m not being remotely “exclusionary”.

So how would you refer to someone who is non-binary and doesn’t use gendered pronouns? Would you simply ignore that because it doesn’t fit your own world view?

No-one is disputing your views and experiences (as tenuous as they seem); how about showing that same respect/courtesy to those who don’t share your views? Lexicological fact goes against your opinion also.

 

[Starmill]

I can guarantee that you will have used it in such a way without realising.

I think that you're right that essentially every native speaker of English uses "they" to mean unknowns, singulars and plurals, probably frequently. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the way people express their gender identity, it's just linguistics. Of course, people are also entitled to ask for others to respect the way their gender is talked about.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

It is perhaps not surprising that conversations like this tend to be contentious and the views of the younger and older generations tend to be diametrically opposed. The young are shaping the conversation about gender and gendered terminology and the older generally resent having to make changes.

I place myself firmly in the middle as (broadly) a middle aged person. I don't pretend to totally understand every facet of modern gender politics, but that doesn't mean I can't be decent about it. If using a person's preferred pronouns, or changing from using a gendered to a ungendered term, helps people to feel included and happier in their lives then I'm going to do it. Because it seems like the decent thing to do.

Gender politics, and language in general, is not a fixed thing. It evolves and we should move with it.

 

[43066]

So how would you refer to someone who is non-binary and doesn’t use gendered pronouns? Would you simply ignore that because it doesn’t fit your own world view?

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.

Do not assume you have a monopoly on misery/difficulty.

No-one is disputing your views and experiences (as tenuous as they seem); how about showing that same respect/courtesy to those who don’t share your views? Lexicological fact goes against your opinion also.

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

 

[AlterEgo]

Hardly in common usage, “they” generally means plural…. If you aren’t aware of that, oh dear indeed!

Here you are a few weeks ago referring to "a passenger" (unknown, unidentified gender) using the gender-neutral "their"

Transpennine woes and a moan...

That's aside from the fact that most drivers aren't trained on coupling or uncoupling the units Seriously? Drivers sign the units but not coupling them? o_O

www.railforums.co.uk

But to humour you, do you believe that if a passenger makes their own arrangements, they should be reimbursed? They are not currently. I am lucky enought to be in a position to cover such journeys. Many are not, especially in a cost of living crisis.

Their tickets should be refunded, yes. I don’t think TOCs (really meaning the government) should necessarily be expected to fund alternatives, especially when many of the tickets purchased will be low cost advances and the alternatives used may be many times more expensive.

And again, even more recently, using "they" to refer to a dispatcher, of unknown, unidentified gender:

What’s the future of dispatchers?

As technology takes over. Many stations are installing self dispatching cameras and screens into stations so the guard does it themself. What does this mean for dispatchers?.

www.railforums.co.uk

You often get given the "tip" from the dispatcher off a different platform too. Not sure how they can see it is safe to close the doors and check the signal from a platform over a footbridge but there we have it. Do they watch the train safely depart the platform? Rarely. You watch them out the side window and by the time you've turned your head to the back window the office door is closing behind them!

That’s ridiculous. If it was me I would ignore them until they’re standing in the correct place and following the correct procedure. Exactly as you say, if something happens it’ll be blamed on you.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is important. Other things are also important. It’s not a competition.

It's in competition to the extent that rewriting a rule book is going to take someone a reasonable amount of time, and time spent rewriting it to satisfy people who dislike certain words in the English language is time that can't be spent doing something more useful.

 

[RHolmes]

Fireman, regardless of which gender the fireman belongs to.

Stoker is the inclusive term

 

[AlterEgo]

It's in competition to the extent that rewriting a rule book is going to take someone a reasonable amount of time, and time spent rewriting it to satisfy people who dislike certain words in the English language is time that can't be spent doing something more useful.

Really? Word replace - pilotman to pilot is labour-intensive now?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Really? Word replace - pilotman to pilot is labour-intensive now?

Yes, I would think so: I would be pretty worried if an organisation responsible for safety attempted to modify its rulebook by just doing a global find-and-replace in 5 seconds and leaving it at that. You'd need at the very least to have someone look at each individual place in the document where the change is being made to make sure that it is intended and correct in that context, and that it doesn't introduce any unintended side-effects or ambiguities, and then I imagine you'd want someone (possibly several someones) to read the result through to check it, and sign off the changes.

 

[zwk500]

The most labour-intensive part of the job will probably be having to go through each and every document the RSSB publishes to update it.

 

[jfowkes]

Really? Word replace - pilotman to pilot is labour-intensive now?

Yes, I would think so: I would be pretty worried if an organisation responsible for safety attempted to modify its rulebook by just doing a global find-and-replace in 5 seconds and leaving it at that. You'd need at the very least to have someone to look at each individual place in the document where a change is being made to make sure that it is intended and correct in that context, and that it doesn't introduce any unintended side-effects or ambiguities, and then I imagine you'd want someone (possibly several someones) to read the result through to check it, and sign off the changes.

I guarantee that the sum total of aggrieved moaning about the change will be far more expended effort than the RSSB took to carry it out.

 

[RHolmes]

It's in competition to the extent that rewriting a rule book is going to take someone a reasonable amount of time, and time spent rewriting it to satisfy people who dislike certain words in the English language is time that can't be spent doing something more useful.

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 ==

The most labour-intensive part of the job will probably be having to go through each and every document the RSSB publishes to update it.

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

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, I would think so: I would be pretty worried if an organisation responsible for safety attempted to modify its rulebook by just doing a global find-and-replace in 5 seconds and leaving it at that. You'd need at the very least to have someone look at each individual place in the document where the change is being made to make sure that it is intended and correct in that context, and that it doesn't introduce any unintended side-effects or ambiguities, and then I imagine you'd want someone (possibly several someones) to read the result through to check it, and sign off the changes.

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

 

[endofthetunnel]

They’ve intentionally not just done a blanket update overnight.

It’s been slowly coming for at least 2 rule book update cycles and this time they’ve not physically reprinted every book, just reissued them electronically - the printouts will be amended as the rule books get updated for other reasons in the normal cycles.

 

[zwk500]

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

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. I don't know if their back end is any more advanced than just having lots of different PDFs/.docx files.