Signallers should no longer be referred to as "signalmen"

[endofthetunnel]

If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of the new procedure is to make it easier to cross the line where a line blockage would previously have been required - so it can be done with a tighter margin available, and it also reduces the signalman's workload.

Just a friendly reminder that we are Signallers not Signal men.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Just a friendly reminder that we are Signallers not Signal men.

No need to separate signal and man, it was one word used as a job title.

 

[endofthetunnel]

No need to separate signal and man, it was one word used as a job title.

Yep sorry that was autocorrect. It is however no longer used as the job title and I was pointing out as such

 

[LowLevel]

Yep sorry that was autocorrect. It is however no longer used as the job title and I was pointing out as such

Most don't care, some like signaller, some like signalman. I don't think it really needs a reminder, personal preference will do in an informal location like a discussion forum (and yes, I have met females in boxes who very much prefer to be referred to as the signalman ). Thoroughly off topic but I always wondered why they bothered to start calling what were signalmen signallers but left pilotman alone!

 

[endofthetunnel]

But we should care. Sorry. It is offensive to those that are offended by it and so we should all try to use the correct term.

The same has happened/is still happening with Firefighters, Police Officers and all gendered professions.
I’m not personally offended by being called a signalman but I do correct people because I have friends who don’t like it and it’s the right thing to do

I completely agree about Pilotman though!

 

[LowLevel]

But we should care. Sorry. It is offensive to those that are offended by it and so we should all try to use the correct term.

The same has happened/is still happening with Firefighters, Police Officers and all gendered professions.
I’m not personally offended by being called a signalman but I do correct people because I have friends who don’t like it and it’s the right thing to do

I completely agree about Pilotman though!

It's equally offensive to people who are proud of being signalmen to suggest that they should forcibly cease to be so, and be happy about it - it is easiest to live and let live on that score I think. They're not wrong to be quite happy to be signalmen, and people who wish to be called "signaller" are equally not wrong. What does matter, of course, is using the correct words in a safety critical setting. Personally I'll probably always think of the job as "the signalman" and I have to think about it consciously in order to say signaller, the same as I have to in order to speak French.

I'm sure it'll die out eventually but until then, if someone says they're a Signalman or a Signaller, they're quite welcome to be whichever makes them happiest to me

(Just don't please start calling me a Senior Conductor as per my name badge - I hate it!!)

 

[endofthetunnel]

Very well said Lowlevel, I think we’re not on entirely opposite sides of the river here.

However I think it is vitally important is that in a thread like this, where it’s informed chat about a new rule, not historical recounting of specific events, the people we are referring to are signallers. The correct job title.

If someone calls themselves a signalman I don’t correct them, as you say that’s their choice, which is the point I’m making too - it’s not our place to decide for them in the forum what to call them.

(If I get called a signalman I do correct people, and if I called you a senior conductor and you corrected me I would respect that and use your chosen title!)

 

[godfreycomplex]

No need to separate signal and man, it was one word used as a job title.

Just a friendly reminder that we are Signallers not Signal men.

It’s a good shibboleth in the signalling community - usually (but not always) insisting on being called “signalman” is rarely the sign of an untroubled conscience, shall we say. We became signallers when I was in nappies, and I’m now old enough to have a wine cooler and slippers. Tells you something.

Some people just go by that as force of habit, but there is an objectionable minority that fanatically insist on it, almost as if if they don’t have man in their title their manhoods will shrivel and fall off.....

Back “on topic” (urgh) the crossing the line procedure is something on SBI level, that means it needs to be exhaustively tested before approval at specific locations on specific occasions for specific people, and only after extensive Union consultation on a local level, which takes time, so it’s not something that’s going to appear overnight (hopefully)

 

[2192]

If a change is needed to pilotman, why not copy our shipping friends and call them pilots?

 

[High Dyke]

Just a friendly reminder that we are Signallers not Signal men.

I beg to differ. I am a signalman, as much as I view my female colleagues as signalwomen. When someone can show me the gender 'ler', then I'll change my opinion.

I haven't had the opportunity to use this procedure. None of the areas I cover are currently authorised. That said I've had requests from maintenance staff to take line blockages at level crossings. That's just ridiculous, and something that I suppose this procedure would go some way to alleviate.

 

[tiptoptaff]

If you changed Pilotman to Pilot, you'd have to change and alter the meaning of Pilot in the rulebook.

Suspect that's why it's been left alone

 

[Tomnick]

Just a friendly reminder that we are Signallers not Signal men.

Thanks, not only for the gentle reminder, but the manner in which it and the subsequent discussion was made. If things are to change, that’s certainly the way to go about it, to promote a better understanding.

I always referred to myself as “signalman” when I was in the box, and I notice that quite a few still do. Lots don’t, of course, which is understandable! As a driver now, I tend to go along with what they start with, defaulting to “signaller” if in doubt. In my other life, on a heritage railway, a conscious decision has been made to stick with “signalman” in the Rule Book (which I support, purely because of the context, and I don’t think I’ve known anyone else in the grade object - and it’s fair to say that we have had a very inclusive mixture over the years). It probably would’ve been better to use “signaller” to refer to a hypothetical person in the grade in the context of this discussion, a fair point.

 

[Ianno87]

I beg to differ. I am a signalman,

Not on your employment contract, you won't be (I doubt)

as much as I view my female colleagues as signalwomen.

But how do your female colleagues see themselves? It's not for you to assign what you see them as.

 

[172007]

Never understood how constable is deemed as a masculine name tbh.

I have always thought it should be signaller.

Difficult one is renaming Fireman as Firefighter as it completely changes the activity the person does.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Thanks Tomnick and Ianno87. I have no problem with people like HighDyke deciding to ignore change and stay as signalman (even though as pointed out we are Signallers contractually!) but deciding what to call other genders of signallers is not for him or us to do. If we can slowly change the default to be signaller then that’s great.

I should say my reference of Firemen/Firefighters was not referring to steam railways but the people in big red trucks, didn’t even think of that.
I definitely agree Constable is a weird word although the coverall term they choose is Officer.

 

[High Dyke]

Not on your employment contract, you won't be (I doubt)

Oddly enough the only copy i have of my contract of employment states I'm a crossing keeper.

 

[Revilo]

I see no problem at all in referring to signalmen, firemen, binmen etc. Especially when the vast majority of (for example) firemen are men (93% in 2020) and there is no reason to suggest that this should change.

There’s nothing wrong with accepting the reality that some roles are better suited to certain types of people, ie than men are generally stronger, generally more interested and generally more suited to physical, dirty jobs than women.

Changing such titles, just because a tiny minority of small-minded lefties on Twitter take ‘offence’ (who cares if they do) is pathetic. The important thing is to ensure that the best people are recruited to the right job, based solely on their merits alone (rather than quota filling), even if the result is gender imbalance.

 

[Ianno87]

I see no problem at all in referring to signalmen, firemen, binmen etc. Especially when the vast majority of (for example) firemen are men (93% in 2020) and there is no reason to suggest that this should change.

Have you heard the expression "Chicken and Egg"?

There’s nothing wrong with accepting the reality that some roles are better suited to certain types of people, ie than men are generally stronger, generally more interested and generally more suited to physical, dirty jobs than women.

So what? Women can do such jobs too (follow Joanne Crompton on Twitter, for example)

Changing such titles, just because a tiny minority of small-minded lefties on Twitter take ‘offence’ (who cares if they do) is pathetic. The important thing is to ensure that the best people are recruited to the right job, based solely on their merits alone (rather than quota filling), even if the result is gender imbalance.

So don't make that gender balance a foregone conclusion by gendering the job title then! Think how many females get put off straightaway without even considering applying because of a gendered job title, because it's "run by men for men".

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each arguement, this sort of nonsense is what contributes to landslide Tory victories, as people who have been in industries and careers for decades feel increasingly isolated and different from the woke generation, which is generally left to far left on the political spectrum.

There is really a forum topic, that has members posting, who seem to be genuinely complaining that being called signalman instead of signaller is wrong.

Who cares? Really? If this sort of thing bothers you, perhaps you ought to see what else is going on in our world which is vastly more important than whatever name you choose to call a signalman.

 

[Ianno87]

Who cares? Really? If this sort of thing bothers you, perhaps you ought to see what else is going on in our world which is vastly more important than whatever name you choose to call a signalman.

The #metoo movement would suggest there is along way to go in treating all genders equally.

The place to start is terminology - normalising men and women being equal by calling them the same thing for the same role.

 

[Horizon22]

I always refer to them as signallers. It's gender neutral and there's no reason not to. There's plenty of females in the grade (and increasing numbers too) and I'm likely to speak to one on a daily basis and there's a perfectly acceptable term. Bit of a non-issue in my eyes

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The #metoo movement would suggest there is along way to go in treating all genders equally.

The place to start is terminology - normalising men and women being equal by calling them the same thing for the same role.

What is the obsession with treating male or females equally in every way possible? Don't get me wrong at all, I'm all for equality, but men and women, on the whole, have their own strengths and weaknesses, and are different. I'm not for equality just for the sake of equality.

Again, I think most people agree that equality is broadly a good thing, however, posts like yours come across as pretentious, condescending and "woke lefty". That's probably an unfair generalisation about you, but I think a lot of the UK population is sick of being told what terminology we should be using, or that the way we have spoken for generations is suddenly wrong and discrimatory.

Erasing words and phrases is a horrific travesty.

 

[endofthetunnel]

I’m glad there’s a majority on the Signaller side of the discussion here but it depresses me that there’s so many against using the correct term!

I didn’t start this topic as a thread - a mod split it off to save another one going off topic - but the number of responses prove there’s reason to talk about it! I agree it should be a non issue, it’s hypocritical to respond to a topic saying ‘who cares’ because it shows you care too.

Those that are offended by being gendered wrongly would appreciate using the neutral term and there will be few to object to not being gendered in their job title. If someone particularly wants to be referred to by an outdated term then that’s fine but it should be the exception not the norm, and I hope all those that agree can try to help correct those who slip back into the last century to call us Signalmen

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I’m glad there’s a majority on the Signaller side of the discussion here but it depresses me that there’s so many against using the correct term!

I didn’t start this topic as a thread - a mod split it off to save another one going off topic - but the number of responses prove there’s reason to talk about it! I agree it should be a non issue, it’s hypocritical to respond to a topic saying ‘who cares’ because it shows you care too.

Those that are offended by being gendered wrongly would appreciate using the neutral term and there will be few to object to not being gendered in their job title. If someone particularly wants to be referred to by an outdated term then that’s fine but it should be the exception not the norm, and I hope all those that agree can try to help correct those who slip back into the last century to call us Signalmen

Signaller is not the "correct" term. It is simply an alternative or different term. The problem is that you seem to believe that one must be right and one is wrong. They are just different, but everyone has the right to use whatever one they feel most appropriate to their vocabulary.

I care that people seek to erase perfectly normal and acceptable language.

It is also hardly last century. I'd wager a very, very large proportion of the UK would use signalman, or bin man, ice cream man etc without a second thought.

 

[endofthetunnel]

To refer to an individual person as signaller, signalman, signalwoman or whatever, is absolutely fine.
It is, I’m sorry to say, incorrect to refer to generic people or the job itself as anything other than Signaller. Everyone has the right to be included in their job title, everyone does not have the right to decide what gender to call me or my colleagues.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

To refer to an individual person as signaller, signalman, signalwoman or whatever, is absolutely fine.
It is, I’m sorry to say, incorrect to refer to generic people or the job itself as anything other than Signaller. Everyone has the right to be included in their job title, everyone does not have the right to decide what gender to call me or my colleagues.

No, no, and no. You have NO right whatsoever to dictate or mandate what somebody calls you! You can have the right to be offended, but except in a small number of criminal areas, I, and anybody else can call you whatever we like!

You also do not get to decide what language is correct or incorrect. You can express a preference.

That sense of false entitlement, is what causes the inevitable adverse newspaper headlines, and criticism of the "lefties" - as seen recently with the shambolic LNER Ladies and Gentlemen announcement criticism.

 

[endofthetunnel]

Ah yes that’s true I suppose, you can say what you like, it’s just not very nice of you to ignore my wishes.
But my job title is signaller, as are all my colleagues, and for at least a decade now, they have been.
You are definitely wrong to call me anything else and it’s up to me whether I’m offended by it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Ah yes that’s true I suppose, you can say what you like, it’s just not very nice of you to ignore my wishes.
But my job title is signaller, as are all my colleagues, and for at least a decade now, they have been.
You are definitely wrong to call me anything else and it’s up to me whether I’m offended by it.

Progress!

But just because you don't like it, doesn't make it "definitely wrong". It's only definitely wrong from your perspective, but somebody else is fully entitled to believe that signalman is "definitely right".

I don't disagree that contractually and as a matter of fact, your job title may well be signaller. That's not the problem. But I cannot see how somebody using an alternative, similar term is "definitely wrong" or somehow being discrimatory.

 

[AlterEgo]

The correct term for the grade is signaller of course and I don’t really see the issue in calling a signaller a signaller. But this isn’t a hill to die on for either side.

 

[endofthetunnel]

It’s wrong to gender me until you know that calling me (or anyone) something else is correct. Whatever they are is introduced as is fine, but until it’s stated, it’s not up to you to decide what to call them.
They may be identifying as a different gender to what they outwardly appear, or just a masculine looking female for example, and it would be offensive to get this wrong, so just use the generic neutral term.

It’s also wrong to gender the grade in general, which is what I have said multiple times in this thread and is what I’m hoping to stop happening, I’m not trying to get anyone to change their own decisions on what to calthemselves.