What would be your gender-neutral alternative to referring to all Air Force members as "airmen"?

First, I think it's the stupidest thing in the world. No...wait, I take that back. Seems every time I say that about something the military does they do their best to outdo themselves. But not just painful, but pandering. Those being "helped" should feel condescended and patronized. If I were in their shoes I'd feel embarrassed that the military would stoop so low as to put my wishes before the mission, to let issues like this take even a few minutes from actually working on mission preparedness would make me feel mistrustful of command's judgment.

But back to the question. I think it would be fun to append with the term "folk". Air-folk. Fire-folk. Sea-folk. Marines. You get the picture.

Actually, note what the Marines have done there. They don't need a conversion because they didn't apply gendered terms to begin with. Simply converting is, to be honest, painfully un-imaginative. Why not come up with terms that don't even require gender awareness at all?

I have a solution for all rank PC problems that our senior civilian officials think is broken. We create the rank of YOU
YOU
YOU2
YOU3
YOU1st class

That way when a senior person get mad at you your rank is involved not You personally

You piece do cr*p
You dirty rotten low down ;($)(://-


you get the point

Corpsman to medic, and I think the responses so far speaks to the rest.

In addition, 'man' is also found in 'hu-man', so all the PC combinations you can think of fit.

Navy's top enlisted leader needs to get Job.

I would say, since the Air Farce is not Constitutionally authorized to exist anyhow, just disband it and reallocate all those personnel and equipment to either the Army or the Navy. Then they can be Soldiers and Sailors and not have to worry about the question any more.

Shitty idea here admittedly but simply, "Tech"? Abbreviation for Technician. The AF expects us to be a technician in whatever skill level we are at. Whether it be a; 3 level, 7 level, 9 level or, whatever the officer core equivalent is, we are expected to be a technician at that job. So... AirTech Basic (I like simply "trainee"), AirTech, AirTech First Class (keep the term "A One C"), Senior Tech. Keep the rest from that point. Ssgt 'last name' so on and so forth. Just an idea. I'm not fanatical about the idea. Just thought I'd throw it out there. As far as the Navy, I guess the job title going before the word "person" instead of the word "man" could work. I dunno. I'm not in the Navy. I don't know how your crazy shit works. Enlisted term of address is........ Seaman? Nope, it's not that. It's like Fire/Air/ect........man......good luck associating a persons rank (term of address) to their MOS/AFSC. Maybe Seaperson? SeaTech? Just throwing it out there I guess. Don't blame me if the Navy makes a shitty policy decision.

We have morale problems with our missle ops crews and you're worried about gender-neutral rank titles? Keep it AIRMAN/AIRMEN, and let's resolve the real issues that plague the military.

Instead of "airman", call everyone "birdperson".

As a retired USAF NCO, we must weigh the idea that does this kind of topic warrant, this kind of lime-light? Once must also consider, the organizations we speak of are the military, not an afternoon and/or after school program, where "PC" is more important than accomplishing what the afternoon and/or after school program was established for in the first place.

Have we as a super power military succumbed to the PC Police and litigation to the point that our initial mission is lost with-in the hustle and bustle to appease certain ideological viewpoints.

I DO believe in equality across the board for any member of the military, however there has to be a line drawn of what causes and/or justified concerns are really important, verses a few mindsets/ideologies (that, from my perspective, seem are too sensitive to be in the military in the first place).

It is my belief that those who chose to continue to champion these kinds of unilateral ideologies, because they feel that a simple title might cause them psychological distress, need to lean towards separation to the civilian sector.

Again I reiterate that I believe in proper customs, courtesies, and the professionalism that embodies those characteristics in support of equality across the board, with-in the military, however does such the idea of changing a title really warrant this kind attention, verses perhaps, actual constraints that ACTUALLY impact the mission on a day-to-day basis...food for thought.

Thanks for all of your time...

v/r