Timothy wrote:
I think of it as being very 1930s to refer to inanimate modes of transport as “she”. The kind of thing my grandfather would have said. And therefore from a different age and understanding of gender issues.
In German all nouns famously have a grammatical gender assigned, making them either feminine (die), masculine (der) or neuter (das).
“The airplane” would be das Flugzeug and hence neuter. But der Flieger (“the flyer”) and die Maschine (“the machine”) are also commonly used for airplanes, thus permitting a German speaker to call airplanes either he, she or it depending on the preferred noun used.
Anyways, I don’t agree with the assumption that it is sexist to call an aircraft or ship “she”. It was traditionally done this way and I don’t see a reason to change that purely for PC reasons.
It is interesting that so many languages use gender in relation to inanimate objetcs, including English, or at least that was once the case. I am very much opposed to sexism, but dont think this has anything to do with this discussion, any more than manhole covers becoming something else. Maybe some of the girls reading this would like to comment? I do agree so far as the English language is concerned it comes from a different age. Personally there are some “traditions” that I like embracing and this is one. Equally, I hope I am not “old fashioned”. The tradition of wearing a tie in the House was rather “nice”, but I am inclined to agree that change was needed. More and more people dont wear ties in the work place these days. I was recently involved in a matter in a Judges chamber and had to chuckle as the barrister bowed to the judge on leaving his chambers. It is all very quaint, but of an age which I would not wish to be a part. Would I bow my head to the Queen, well yes I would, but to a judge – I dont think so. Which reminds me of the last time I referred to a lady ATC as “marm” – oh boy did I get told off. I have never done that again.
I would be happier to bow to a judge than the queen, because it is an achievement to become a judge, whereas it just fell in her lap, but actually, when you bow to a judge you are actually bowing to the queen, whom the judiciary represent.
Czech has genders for everything, too. Those languages are a real bugger to learn, unless you are good at learning languages.
BTW the other thing about knowing who the women posters are is that it is usually obvious from the writing style. Hence if a bloke is trying to impersonate a woman, he will write as little as possible 
Same for women who don’t want to be identified as women (as we have some of those too); they also write very short posts.
Of course our languages are all very old. This is what the PC lobby will always struggle with, usually unsuccessfully.
Timothy wrote:
I would be happier to bow to a judge than the queen, because it is an achievement to become a judge, whereas it just fell in her lap, but actually, when you bow to a judge you are actually bowing to the queen, whom the judiciary represent.
Ah, but you see Timothy, that is where I think the dichotomy lies. The juduciary representing the Queen is of a different age – she may represent the juduciary in theory, but not in reality. The Queen on the other hand is the Crown, which is still of our age, whether you are a Royalist or not and for as long as we have a monarchy, and I happen to think has achieved a great deal in her life time. A judge at least until recently rose from a “tap on the shoulder” and while now JAC has responsibility, a judge is just another professional performing a task he is paid to do.
Peter wrote:
BTW the other thing about knowing who the women posters are is that it is usually obvious from the writing style. Hence if a bloke is trying to impersonate a woman, he will write as little as possible Same for women who don’t want to be identified as women (as we have some of those too); they also write very short posts.
I dont know how you can get away with that Peter
I am pleased to say my very first flying lesson was with a woman. She owned a Cub and flew for BA. I could not hope to have been taught by a better pilot, but more to the point, a pilot who loved to fly. She believed flying should be fun, right down to those strafing missions we pretended to fly along the local beach front.
OK, let me rephrase “Same for women who don’t want to be identified as women” as “Same for women who don’t want to be identified”
There is a number of people on EuroGA (male and female) who very specifically do not want to be identified. I know some of them personally and know the reasons why, and they are very good reasons. And we all know that if someone generates say 5000 posts (that are not complete drivel) then everybody will have worked out who they are… It is a feature of our society that for every man who has been persecuted in real life via online identification by some vengeful twat, there are a dozen women who have been hassled, stalked, etc. Just another facet of forums…
I agree re female instructors.
The selection of the judiciary, both professional and lay, is a very long way from the “tap on the shoulder” and has been for quite some time.
Peter wrote:
Of course our languages are all very old. This is what the PC lobby will always struggle with, usually unsuccessfully.
Which brings to mind the issue of younger/older and single/married not being distinguished in some languages, for example Italian. At what perceived age does an unmarried woman become signora instead of signorina? How can avoid showing your perception of a woman’s age? I don’t believe many affected cultures will do the German thing and drop their equivalent of fräulein.
That aside, it is perfectly polite to address any woman controller as ma’am in the US, just as you might say “’yes, sir” to her male counterpart. ATC also uses those terms to address pilots. It’s a respectful, old fashioned custom that recognizes the relationship as formal one with defined roles and authorities, not a chat between casual friends meeting on a street corner.
A little off topic but here goes:
Timothy wrote:
The selection of the judiciary, both professional and lay, is a very long way from the “tap on the shoulder” and has been for quite some time
So if it is somewhat convoluted to become a judge why do we seem to have so many who know nothing of the world we live in and why is it virtually impossible to remove such? I personally know of one that were any one I know about to appear before said judge I would urge them to have the case moved whatever the circumstances. Teir personal views and reasoning are just so way out!
