A European Union-funded organisation has banned common terms such as “Englishman” and “maiden name” in a diversity drive aimed at promoting gender-neutral language. The phrases deemed potentially “biased, discriminatory or demeaning” were outlined in a 38-page report funded by the bloc and compiled by the United Nations (UN) Women agency, a partner of the EU. It offered alternatives for the supposedly offensive terms, including replacing “Englishman” with “the English” and substituting “mother tongue” with “native tongue”.

Similarly, European countries were urged to replace the term “motherly” with “loving or nurturing” and even stop using “masterpiece” as a descriptive word, instead hailing impressive feats as “works of genius”. The document, titled “Guidelines for the use of language as a driver of equality and inclusivity”, argued that the highlighted language helped to perpetuate casual sexism that affects women across professional and personal spheres.

“Using gender-fair and inclusive language helps reduce gender stereotyping, promotes social change and contributes to achieving gender equality,” it read.

The report also warned that the internet had “provided a new dimension for the expression and transmission of sexism” as it urged against the use of “female” and “male” when referring to people in a bid to avoid reducing them to their biological characteristics.

It said the terms “woman” and “man” were more appropriate and also called for gender-neutral titles to become the norm in European workplaces, with “police officer” replacing “policeman” and “chair” replacing “chairman”.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp hit back at the recommendations, describing them as “politically correct nonsense”.

He told GB News: “With Russia menacing Europe’s borders, a cost-of-living crisis, floods of illegal immigrants entering Europe and the potential collapse of the regime in Iran, the last thing anyone needs to worry about is banning these long-standing phrases.

“We should keep our language and keep our culture and not have faceless bureaucrats interfering. This is another reason why going back into the orbit of the EU is a bad idea.”