Very telling conversation below demonstrating our struggle to find unifying/common understanding of what we are doing. If SIGINT and EW are Cyber, I could infer cyberspace = electromagnetic spectrum = modulation space = ether. So, cyber is ether (using here as ~17th century scientific term for description of forces in the universe without material properties)?? I don't see it that way. I would sooner say cyber is part of SIGINT and/or EW (a child of SIGINT/EW, really), as computer signals ultimately are required to travel along comms paths which are already defined - whether wired or wireless (2.4 GHz, fiber, cable, twisted pair, doesn't really matter). "Operating" in cyberspace is collection, mapping, or manipulation (same thing as SIGINT, Nodal analysis, and EW). It isn't different. Sure, there are nuances specific to networks/computers, and yes, it requires separate, new skills. However, the point is what we do isn't conceptually different than what we did decades ago and all the talk of what cyber is and isn't only serves as a diversion and confuses people. We haven't redefined or transformed what we do. We may be redefining or transforming the tools/efforts required to support operations, who is supported/supporting (enter argument here on who, ultimately, should be the supported folks and whether or not we have it right today), or even how we do it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to collecting and/or disrupting communications, although it is certainly prudent to understand how others perceive "cyber" in order to ensure the ability for our folks to do their jobs. The description of what we do - SIGINT, EW, Cyber - is a suitable marriage between what we do and maintaining our ability to support what we do.
For the sake of semantics: SIGINT and EW are both phrases with adjectives used to qualify nouns (signals intelligence, electronic warfare). Cyber isn't a noun - it is a prefix (or, more liberally, an adjective) which should likewise modify a noun, as it qualifies nothing on its own. Perhaps in usage we should say cyber operations (very vague), cyber intelligence (better), cyber warfare (better). If we all understood what (noun) we were talking about when we use the term, we'd be much better able to inculcate understanding in our junior officers and in our wardrooms and better able to make quality decisions about things like AQDs, billets, required skill sets, etc, etc. I'm not sure we are there, yet, and I think it will take some time before we are.