No need to to apologise, I was being curt and thus rude.
This is where I was trying to get to.
A worldview that says gendered labels for jobs really don't matter, can't explain why a female copper was called WPC and a male copper PC. In this worldview, the instance shouldn't arise and it's baffling that it does.
So one could try out another worldview.
Eg, that adding "Woman" in front of "Police Constable" for female officers makes the default definition of "Police Constable" male. So that female officers are never the norm. They are perpetually an anomaly. And since they're different and not mainstream it seems natural they should be on different payscales or promotion paths, doing different roles and eligible (or not) for different posts.
This worldview explains very well why a male-controlled organisation "permitting" female employment but not wanting to lose male power or promotion opportunities (eg 1980s police force), would call female coppers WPCs and male copper PCs. To reinforce the WPCs' place.
There's no guarantee this worldview is correct, either, and you can probably come up with more. But this one does seem to match what we observe in the real world in this instance, whereas "gendered labels are completely unimportant" doesn't.
And I don't mind being called a woman either.
As long as there's no subtext like the above.