If the wokeys have their way, men won’t be allowed to speak at all

Every so often the men of Britain lay claim to a crisis of masculinity. Usually, it’s because of egregious unfairnesses like women being better at football and girls getting better grades at A-level – including (whisper it) maths, which we all know is the boys’ birthright. But right now I must admit to more than a scintilla of sympathy towards the nation’s menfolk who are in grave danger of being silenced, censored – cancelled.

Wokeys offering advice to the Home Office have suggested civil servants should not use the word “mate”. I can understand it doesn’t sound quite right in an official context: “Your claim has been considered, but for the reasons given below it has been concluded that you do not qualify for asylum, mate.” That just sounds unnecessarily snarky.

But the condemnation of the chirpy appellation “mate” pertains to its use in internal emails and interactions. Such demotic informality would have given Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey apoplexy. But times have changed. Last week members of the Home Office’s Homeland Security Group, which leads the UK’S counter-terrorism response, attended a talk on “the right language” around LGBT issues.

The term “genderqueer” got the green light. So too did rainbow lanyards and the tiresome look-at-me practice of flagging up personal pronouns. Warnings were issued against the word “transsexual”. No, don’t ask me why that’s suddenly reprehensible.

The opprobrium abruptly heaped on the word “mate” seems equally bizarre. Where two men are gathered together and one of them is servicing the boiler or using a power tool and the other is a husband, aching to have a manly chat about rawlplugs, “mate” is the only possible form of address. Using first names sounds creepy. The term “mate” on the other hand is the great, egalitarian leveller, signalling We Are Men Who Have Bonded. Even in situations where nothing needs mending, when an uptight chap says it to another even more uptight chap, the flood of endorphins is comparable to the opening bell at a Roman bacchanal.

How else are men expected to communicate? Show empathy, understanding – even tenderness, dammit! And if you’ve ever watched

Motherland you will know that women can deploy the word “mate”, too. I say deploy, because it can easily be weaponised. Hell hath no fury like rictus-grinned Anna Maxwell Martin’s Julia, spitting out the word “mate” with a hard ‘t” to express her fury and disappointment in a Munchian scream of Weltschmerz.

Back at the Home Office, a spokesperson pointed out the contents of the LGBT presentation didn’t represent “departmental or government guidance”. So far so dignified, until the dread phrase explaining that such events helped staff “to be their best selves at work”. Oh dear. The right-on rot has clearly set in; next step, jars of Coffee Mate will be confiscated at reception as offensive, which it most certainly is, but only if you spoon it into your mug of Nescafè.

You see what will happen? Virtue-signalling activists seeking to make an example of perfectly blameless language smacks of a creeping intolerance that we must oppose. Mostly. Even the most libertarian among us would surely concur that the summary removal of “mate” from its “g’day” prefix would make Australians a lot less annoying.