Terms such as “airmen” are offensive and should be replaced with “gender-inclusive alternatives”, NATO guidance has said. Under the Western military alliance’s language manual, this term should be replaced with “air force personnel”, “pilots” or “air corps” instead. It warns that gendered terms are outdated and risk alienating women and minorities.
The manual contains several recommendations for NATO staff, instructing them to “challenge unconscious bias” and “raise awareness of how language affects our behaviours and attitudes.” It continues that gender-inclusive language is becoming “the new norm” and that there is a “set of techniques to avoid the generic masculine form.” However, critics have branded the move a farce, saying NATO’s job is to deter Russia, and defend its member states like the Baltics.
Terms such as serviceman, guardsman and “my guys” have been ditched in favour of “service member”, “guard” and “team”, according to the Sunday Telegraph. Manning has also been corrected to staffing.
The guidebook said: “Military ranks are generally gender-neutral in English. However, some challenges remain with ranks in the navy and air force such as Ordinary Seaman, Able Seaman and Master Seaman.
“Depending on the context, gender-inclusive alternatives can be used for more general terms.”
However, the guide says “ranks in the Navy and air force don’t change.” But it goes beyond just military terms and extends into language used for civilian roles, suggesting replacing chairperson with “chair,” statesman with “political leader,” waiter or waitress with “server,” and handyman with “technician or repairer”. Elsewhere, NATO urges its staff to avoid using commonly used terms such as “manpower” altogether.
The guidance also suggests that when referring to a transgender person, staff “use the appropriate title and pronouns for the person’s gender identity”.
Sir John Hayes, the Common Sense group of MPs chairman, slammed the move: “Their job is to defend countries, not promote distortion of language.
“These terms are a farce”.
He went on to criticise top alliance officials for “having too much time and too little sense ” and for “corrupting people’s thinking”.
“NATO is an organisation dedicated to the defence of its nations, and people who need to be defended, don’t really mind whether it is done by a guardsman or a guard, or an air force personnel or airmen.”
