I would have thought that those actively combating sexism would be happy that these vehilces have been 'unmanned'.

Such a position confuses anti sexism with being against men.

Change the nomenclature to one that is not sexist.

One should try to improve rather than repeat unacceptable practices from the past.

"One should try to improve rather than repeat unacceptable practices from the past."

What, you mean like telling people what to do or what to think or what it is or is not possible to say?

I find that unacceptable so you should refrain, yeah?

I really despise the phrase "PC gone mad" that people often role out. But at times I understand the source of their frustrations.

I am not telling you to "pick your battles", but it is not an unreasonable piece of folk wisdom.

Some communications primarily express the communicator's emotions, but many communications and surely most if not all scholarly communications seek to change what the audience thinks.

I had hitherto believed that it was fairly well established that terms such as 'man' and its compounds are commonly understood to exclude women and that therefore to promote fairness they should be eschewed.

That point has been moderately well understood for 'mankind' and thus far I have read no good justification for 'unmanned aircraft'. The author seems to use 'drone' as an alternative to 'unmanned aircraft' and to use 'piloted' as an alternative to 'manned' which would have been much more usual decades ago.

"I had hitherto believed that it was fairly well established that terms such as 'man' and its compounds are commonly understood to exclude women and that therefore to promote fairness they should be eschewed."

No. It is believed in certain circles that terms such as 'man' and its compounds exclude women and they should be eschewed.

Whether eschewing them actually promotes fairness is not something that all people believe and I don't even know it has been "well established". Accepted and implemented certainly, but if you could point to actual research which has studied the outcomes that would be most helpful.

Take for example the term under discussion. Let us change it to Pilot.

The question to me seems to resolve around what concepts any given individual might associate with pilot. It is not impossible, and probably quite prevalent, for many people upon hearing the word Pilot to think of a man.

In some societies that might even be a particular kind of man: Caucasian church going fellow who says 'Yes Sir' and 'Thank you ma'am' quite a bit too often. Many words which are considered neutral are heavily gendered in the minds of many people. If you say Doctor, chances are that many will think of a man. Say Nurse, many will think of a woman.

The word itself is meaningless - just sounds and symbols - the conceptual framework it sits in is the determining factor.

For someone like me who does not associate either man or woman with a set of concepts that say, for example, include man better, man breadwinner, man smarter, woman wife, woman clean, woman stay home be pretty, the change from unmanned to remotely piloted will probably have no effect.

For the person who does have these concepts, who probably imagines a man when he hears the word pilot, what effect does it actually have? If there is still a link between the words Man and Pilot, unmanned and un-piloted really don't drive home a message of fairness and inclusiveness.

"I have read no good justification for 'unmanned aircraft'."

The only justification required is - That's what people call it.

Noun Aerial Vehicle. Predicate Unmanned.

Commonly used words expressing certain common concepts put together to describe something.

BTW. A Drone is a male bee.

The research is reported in Huddleston, Rodney and Pullamn, Geoffrey K (2005) A student's introduction to English grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge at page 104 and I presume at greater length in its source Huddleston, Rodney and Pullamn, Geoffrey K (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Language must have shared meaning to be understood so I don't think one person's understanding is significant.

People used to call others 'spastic' and 'nigger' but this use has rightly been rejected by all but the most extreme.

Many words in English have multiple meanings.

"Language must have shared meaning to be understood so I don't think one person's understanding is significant."

Shared meaning doesn't exclude the possibility of each of us having other different concepts attached beyond those shared aspects.

The word beach contains a set of abstract ideas that we both share, but also will contain very individualized content derived from our experience. What someone from the Gold Coast thinks upon hearing beach will share similarities with, but not be necessarily be equivalent to what someone from Geelong might think.

Someone from Saudi Arabia might know the word Doctor but it is possible that they have never encountered a Female Doctor. So we can communicate on the basis of our shared meanings, but our friend from Saudi Arabia might be rather confused if we introduce a female friend as a Doctor.

Pilot implies someone engaged in controlling a vehicle. I am pretty sure both us have something like "flying a plane" as part of our set of ideas. We may both even have ideas relating to piloting of boats. I am guessing that neither of us have the idea "something only a man can do." This does not mean that others don't have that concept.

We can communicate something by the content that we share, but we may not communicate all that we as individuals associate with the concept.

You can believe it is not significant. I believe it is of the utmost significance because it would to explain why so many of us can communicate, but often to no good effect.

It is the shared meanings that are significant for as Wittgenstein argued without shared meaning their can be no communication. Private language games interest only solipsists.

I cannot believe this string of unmitigated blather. Who bloody cares if unmanned is sexist? Are you guys living on Planet Pedantis or Didacto. Get real.

Who bloody cares what you think, Robert?

Experience now how my lack of concern for what you think neither impedes, nor limits your capacity to do so. You are even free to discuss what you think, despite my lack of concern.

Pretty cool, yeah?

The fact that you have no concern for what I think, and give me leave to discuss what I think, is of little concern to me. What interests me is that a didactic pedant is just that. No matter how the words are shaped.