There is an important moral division in our society. Many people seem to believe that we all have a duty not to give unintentional offence, to moderate our behaviour and language in all kinds of ways because someone might take offence at it even if we are not aiming to give any offence. I, in contrast, believe that it is just as morally wrong to take offence where none is intended as it is to give offence where none is warranted. And, given that it is wrong to take offence where none is intended, why should we pander to this wrong-doing by bowing to it in our behaviour?
I'll give you a trivial example. Some years ago now, I was telling a story in company about someone whose parachute hadn't opened when she did her first jump. I said something like "Well, the lady was about to..." I was interrupted with an abrupt "Woman!" "Excuse me?" "Woman. You said 'Lady'. She was a 'Woman'."
One of my hearers had decided to take offence at the use of the word "lady". Now, as it happens, at the time I had various objections to the word "woman" - specifically its implied suggestion that a female was derivative upon the man whose she was - and I had been raised to prefer the (safer) term "lady". I did not discuss this point with my interjectors, who had concluded that I was some kind of sexist for using the term "lady". I was mystified by this, and not a little annoyed. But the key thing I recall was the argument of someone else there who said he considered it a simple matter of politeness. If young female humans didn't like to be referred to as "ladies" then one must be sure to refer to them as "women".
We see something similar with members of ethnic minorities. Once upon a time the term "black" was offensive, so people tried to accomodate by using the term "coloured". Then "coloured" became problematic and now we are back to "black". I was raised to understand the term "black" as a political term - so Maoris and Indians and people of mixed race where even the overwhelming majority of their bloodline was European called themselves or were referred to by others as "black". Consequently the term "black" was a divisive label, used by the "white" to proclaim the "black" as inferior and by the "black" to proclaim themselves the victims of the "white". I would never, for example, refer to my bronze-skinned little boys as "black". And I never refer to myself as "white" if I can get away without it - preferring "pink-skinned" (on ethnic statistics forms I always refer to myself as "mixed race" and explain with "Celtic and Anglian"). The terms I was raised to prefer were things like "negro", "caucasian", "aryan" (for north Indians or Persians), "polynesian" etc. if one really needed to refer to someone's race - and even most of these were far too coarse-grained (a Englishman and an Icelander are not really of the same race, in my view, insofar as the term "race" has any meaning at all). (Typically I wouldn't notice races at all. I remember the odd sensation upon returning from my first year at university, having alas! been slightly sensitized to the way that others think of race issues, and noticing for the first time that Trevor McDonald was "black" - something I'd never noticed before.)
But if I were to write a newspaper article referring to my wife as a "negro", there would be outrage of all sorts. Lots of people to whom I had no ill will at all would take much offence. But I maintain that it is they who are in the wrong here. Not because it might not be better to avoid the term "negro", but because they would be taking offence where none was intended.
Another well-known example is "homosexuals"/"gays"/"queers". As I understand the state of play, homosexual men refer to one another as "queer", but if heterosexuals do that it is offensive. And it appears to be preferred to refer to "gays" or "gay men" as opposed to the term "homosexual". The establishment view appears to be that it is up to the group themselves to decide what is offensive to them and how they want to be referred to. But is that right? For example, suppose that some homosexual men decided that we all had to refer to them as "heroes" and any other term would denigrate their struggle, thereby being offensive. Must we comply? Or ought it to be enough that the person using whatever term she uses is doing so in a positive spirit, intending no offence?
Incidentally, although it is certainly the case that some women, some members of ethnic minorities, some homosexuals take offence easily, it is by no means all. As should be obvious, these groups are almost as diverse in their opinions as the rest of society, and range from the hair-trigger offended to the positively thick-skinned. Very often, in fact, it is not offence taken by these groups themselves, but offence taken on their behalf by others who wish to emphasize their own political correctness.
I'll give you one last example. It's religious. Some people take offence when a Christian, say, offers to pray for them. But, of course, for the Christian this is an act of love. More contentiously, some people are offended when a Christian says something like "Your behaviour is sinful. You ought to change." From the Christian's point of view, this is again an act of love - we are instructed to rebuke each other and try to set ourselves back on the right path. The Christian rebuking is trying to help you, not to hurt you. But others seem to take these things in the wrong spirit, and to regard themselves as attacked or insulted.
Here is a real-world case (hat-tip Cranmer). A nurse has been suspended for offering to pray for her patients. A fellow nurse took offence on their behalf. But an offer of prayer is an offer of kindness. To construe an offer of kindness as some kind of attack - something wrong that might cost you your job - seems to me to be a classic example of where taking offence when none is intended leads us as a society.
A plea: Can we strive for tolerance, please? Think about it. Who is it that is being oppressed when someone cannot complete his interesting story because he used the word "lady" and is shouted down? Who is it that is oppressed when his academic article is refused for publication because he used the generic "he" instead of the generic "she"? Who is it that is oppressed when she loses her job for using the word "negro" in public? Who is it that is oppressed when he doesn't participate at all in a conversation about human sexuality because he is afraid he will use the wrong word for homosexuality and offend someone? And who is it that is oppressed when she is suspended from her job for offering to pray for someone? It seems pretty clear to me.
