Andrew Vine: Thanks love, but why seek out offence when none is intended?

But the reaction it prompted hopefully doesn’t happen to him very often. “Don’t call me love,” she bawled. “It’s patronising and sexist.” She looked daggers at him, turned on her heel and swept out.

The shopkeeper was very crestfallen, and another woman who was next in the queue told him not to take any notice. He will, though. Like most people, he doesn’t want to cause offence, let alone alienate a customer.

It’s to be hoped that the woman doesn’t travel the country very much, as she’s going to be doing a lot of shouting at all the people from the Midlands who call her “duck” or those in the North East who prefer “pet”, or worst of all, the Londoners to whom she would be “darling”.

She’s perfectly entitled to dislike being called “love”, even though the term is used in millions of conversations every day in Yorkshire, where it is simply part of the verbal currency, an ingrained expression that denotes friendliness and amiability.

Patronising and sexist? Not at all, just one of the hallmarks of the way we engage, as every other regional term of endearment is, with absolutely no ulterior motive.

But her furious reaction does tell us something about the growing propensity to look for offence where none exists or was intended, to howl about discrimination and raise the ugly spectres of racism or sexism increasingly often.

Nobody in their right mind condones such discrimination. Racism and sexism need to be challenged and stamped on, because they are abhorrent.

By seeing them everywhere, especially in words or deeds that have no malign intent, their currency becomes devalued.

Society’s repugnance at them becomes dulled when racism or sexism are shouted from the rooftops on what can seem like an almost daily basis, and that ultimately is bad for genuine victims of bigotry.

Last week produced a textbook example of reducing these serious matters to a level 
of absurdity that wouldn’t be out of place in a surreal comedy show.

The Students’ Union at the University of East Anglia banned a Tex Mex restaurant with a stall at its freshers’ fair from handing out sombreros on the grounds that it was racist against Mexicans.

The last time I was in Norwich, I must somehow have missed the embattled Mexican population living under siege from locals hurling vile abuse and tins of mustard powder while wearing sombreros as a symbol of their contempt. Despite snorts of derision – and a total absence of solidarity from any Mexicans who felt the honour of their homeland had been upheld – the sombrero ban was defended.

A student billing himself as “campaigns and democracy officer” trumpeted: “At all events we try to ensure that there is no behaviour, language or imagery which could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist.”

The damaging consequences that can flow from the relentless obsession to see discrimination where none exists are spelt 
out in a new book that is causing some disquiet in the United States.

Californian academic Kim Elsesser’s Sex and the Office is making waves in the US corporate world because of its warning that the propensity to take offence has now got so far out of hand that it is holding female employees back.

There have been nonsensical complaints that male colleagues exhibit sexism by holding the door open for female colleagues, which have been vigorously investigated by companies fearful of legal action or accusations of failing women.

Ms Elsesser’s research found that far from promoting equality, this atmosphere of fear is hampering women’s progress as male colleagues are increasingly reluctant to offer advice or mentoring, because they are worried about being accused of speaking or behaving inappropriately.

Another strand in this tapestry of nonsense has already floated ashore here from America, and though it’s not yet very prevalent, stand by for it to be embraced with zeal by the sombrero brigade.

It’s a concept called “microaggression” that holds if everyday conversations are scrutinised closely enough, a pattern of tiny slights emerges that when added up reveal a campaign of sustained harassment.

It can only be a matter of time before our tetchy customer bawls “You’re being microaggressive and sexist” at some hapless shopkeeper who’s inadvertently called her “love”.

And when it happens, a bit more of the amiable to-and-fro of everyday life will have been sacrificed to the mania for taking offence.