Dear Sir: Will you please present a list of words and phrases that we’re not allowed to use here in the land where we all enjoy the freedom to exchange ideas? I’m having a hard time keeping track.

Be careful what you ask for, even in jest. Stockport College in Manchester, England, has just obliged. In June the college issued a set of guidelines called "Equal Opportunities: Policy into Practice," which included 40 words or phrases that are verboten for its 15,000 students and employees.

For starters, lady and gentleman are both banned: They have "unwanted [social] class implications." History is "sexist" (it’s the "his" part that’s the problem); ditto Mrs., man on the street, postman, chairman and manmade. Crazy, mad and manic could be "offensive to some with mental-health problems." Slaving over a hot stove "minimizes the horror and oppression of the slave trade." Queer or cripple are out except in cases where "gay or disabled people have reclaimed them." And normal couple — well, the hypersensitive guidelines wail, "How do you define normal?"

All this reminds me, for at least the hundredth time, to be glad I’m not a satirist. Nothing I could make up could compare to the real-life stuff.

Mind you, Stockport claims it hasn’t actually outlawed any of this talk, but merely seeks to "discourage" it. That’s not very convincing, however, since you can be denied admission or employment for breaking the rules (the college says it will "make it a condition of service and admission that employees and students adhere to this policy"). Moreover, Stockport’s Web site warns that "any form" of "inappropriate behavior which causes offense, whether intentional or not, will be treated very seriously" (emphasis added). In other words, slip up and call a woman Mrs. Jones and you’ll be hauled before a kangaroo court.

This is just another chapter in the history (oops; naughty word) of sensitivity tyranny, the ever-advancing movement that pushes people around in the name of niceness. It’s enough to make you long for the old-fashioned autocrats—out-and-out bullies who at least spared you the gooey pretense that they were motivated by their finely honed regard for other people’s sensibilities.

In fact, it’s worth asking just who is offended by the language that Stockport finds intolerable. It’s not the common people—the ones whose self-esteem supposedly might suffer from the "unwanted class implications" of lady and gentleman. These are the folk most likely to talk that way, and to find the college’s reaction laughable. The man on the street will commonly speak of the man on the street. The working-class woman is the one most likely to complain that she’s been slaving over a hot stove. And so it goes.

The only people who really get worked up over stuff like this are the sort who see everything through the lens of their group (race, class, gender, what have you) and perceive all of history as an extended persecution aimed at them. They’re perpetually indignant over some perceived injustice, denouncing anyone who opposes them as bigots. If you’ve ever been confronted by this type, you may have been tempted to stop them in the middle of their accusatory rant and say, "honest, not only do I not hate you; I don’t even spend any time thinking about you at all."

Indeed, you could ignore them except that they have a way of clustering in strategic places: government bureaucracies, universities, corporate "diversity training" programs. From those positions they wage war, not just against the norms of our particular society, but against the idea that there can be any norms or standards at all. ("How do you define normal?") Even the age-old, virtually universal institution of marriage comes under assault. At companies like AT&T, employees are told by the diversity-training manual not to speak of husbands and wives, but to restrict themselves to terms like significant other and partner.

The one thing I’ll say for this crowd is that they don’t fool anyone into thinking they’re "moderates," unlike (say) a Bill Clinton. They’re not subtly seductive; they’re openly hostile to pretty much all our traditions, and the belligerence that drives them is plain for everyone to see. That won’t win many people to their cause, except other belligerent types spoiling for a fight.

That doesn’t mean they don’t need to be resisted, of course, but they can be defeated by civil, reasonable people. All we have to do is to conduct ourselves like ladies and gentlemen.