Way of the World Michael Deacon

The World Health Organisation is worried about monkeypox. Not just the disease – but the name. So worried, in fact, that it’s promised to think of a new one. Because in some people’s eyes, it seems, “monkeypox” is offensive – and possibly even racist.

The WHO’S decision comes in response to a letter from a group of scientists, who argued that the name was “discriminatory and stigmatising”. I find this claim puzzling, since I don’t see who could be stigmatised by the name “monkeypox” – apart, I suppose, from monkeys. Perhaps a delegation of leading monkeys has lodged a formal complaint.

“Dear Sirs, on behalf of the wider monkey community we wish to point out that the so-called ‘monkeypox’ has actually been found in a wide variety of mammals, and it is not known which species was the original source of the disease. Calling it ‘monkeypox’ is therefore ignorant and defamatory, and could lead to a rise in anti-monkey prejudice, with innocent monkeys facing unacceptable abuse from the public, and potentially being denied valuable career opportunities, for example in circuses or ads for PG Tips.”

It turns out, however, that it isn’t monkeys the WHO is concerned about. Apparently, it thinks the victims of any discrimination and stigma will be people from Africa. Again, though, I don’t see how they get this idea from the word “monkeypox”. After all, monkeys don’t just come from Africa – they’re also found in Asia, and South and Central America.

Still, it’s hardly unusual for the WHO to be oversensitive. During the pandemic it decided it was “stigmatising” to name Covid variants after the places they were first identified. For example, “the Kent variant”. I found this odd. I live in Kent, and I didn’t feel stigmatised by the name “Kent variant”, and nor did anyone

I know. For some reason, the WHO had decided to be offended on our behalf, even though we weren’t offended ourselves. Incidentally, I wonder why no one has renamed chickenpox – which, after all, does not come from chickens. Perhaps the time has come for the chicken community to take a stand.

Is it acceptable for an actor who’s straight to play a character who’s gay? Tom Hanks says not. Back in 1993, he played a gay man in the film Philadelphia. But this week he said we’d never see casting like that in a film these days – “and rightly so”. Modern audiences, Mr Hanks believes, simply wouldn’t tolerate such “inauthenticity”.

Of course, the old-fashioned might argue that all acting is by definition “inauthentic”, because – unless you’ve been handed the starring role in a biopic of yourself – you’re always playing someone who isn’t you. Your job as an actor is to make the inauthentic seem authentic. And Mr Hanks must have seemed like an authentic gay man in Philadelphia, because his performance won him the Oscar for Best Actor.

Still, it’s become widespread, at least in progressive circles, to insist that an actor has the same sexuality, gender identity and “lived experience” as the character he or she is playing. Hence the controversy over The Danish Girl, a 2015 film in which Eddie Redmayne, a man, played a trans woman. Last year Mr Redmayne said that on reflection his casting had been “a mistake”.

He shouldn’t be so hard on himself. A few months ago, after all, Netflix released Stay Close, an acclaimed thriller serial which featured Eddie Izzard playing a man called Harry. Yet Izzard has been using the pronouns she/her since 2020. Which means Izzard was a woman playing a man. According to the new progressive rules, isn’t that inauthentic? As it turned out, however, viewers didn’t seem to have any objection to this piece of casting, and found Izzard perfectly plausible in the role. So perhaps today’s audiences are more open-minded than progressives think.

Yeonmi Park, an author and human rights activist, fled North Korea with her family at the age of 13. Now 28, she’s lived happily in the US for the past eight years. But this week, she told an interviewer that she’s “terrified” for the future – because she fears that, at school, American children are being “indoctrinated” into socialism. Her own son, she says, is being taught to “think like a socialist” and to believe that socialism is “a good, benevolent system”.

If I were her, I wouldn’t worry so much. The truth is that in the West, the young have always been Left-wing anyway, whether their teachers encourage it or not. The reason is quite simple. The young like socialism because, in their lives to date, it’s all they’ve ever known.

Essentially, after all, the family unit is a socialist state, rigidly adhering to the core Marxist principle: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Parents provide their children with everything free at the point of use: food, accommodation, even pocket money.

When the children approach adulthood, however, they realise, to their horror and indignation, that the safety net provided by their parents is about to be abruptly torn away, and they’ll be forced to fend for themselves. Which is why they’re naturally attracted to socialism. It seems to promise them a kind of lifelong childhood, with the state fulfilling the role that until now their parents have performed.

I’m sure Ms Park’s son, like so many young people before him, will grow out of it in time. And if he doesn’t, at least he can always find a nice, secure job in teaching.