.....
It would respectfully disagree. Political correctness exists, and refusing to acknowledge it does not make it any less so. There are reasonable and worthy objections and there is political correctness, which takes things beyond the limits of the desirable or sensible.
An example. Some time circa the turn of the century the police were told by ACPO to stop using the term 'brainstorm' in training and meetings. Apparently, it was offensive to people with epilepsy. When queried it would seem that no one with epilepsy had complained to ACPO over the matter, and even the Epilepsy Society stated that it was utter nonsense.
Another example. At about the same time a lot of large government organisations such as the Feds, NHS etc, were under pressure not promise the term "nitty gritty". It has connotations with the slave trade, and is therefore offensive, we were told. Radio 4 got wind of this and did an entite programme on the matter. They followed a leading lexicographer as he researched the matter, and he could find no recorded use of the term prior to the late 1920s. Therefore, it could not possibly have anything g to do with the slave trade.
Yet large organisations employed Diversity Advisors who merrily cracked down on the use of such language.
And that is political correctness. Someone, somewhere, usually unrelated in any way to the matter at hand, taking it upon themselves to create rules and procedures which are inevitably unsolicited by the party they are supposed to protect from offence, and utterly nonsensical.
Seriously (and, I hope, equally respectfully)?
I think you and I are more agreed than you realise.
Consider the process. Phrase X has been in common use for donkeys' years without most of its users giving much attention to its origins or implications. Then people start asking questions about whether X might be hurtful to certain people, or whether X might be entrenching or promoting prejudiced attitudes. So X gets examined in a nebulous sort of way over a period of time. Collectively, we may decide that X is fine, no-one is being hurt, and we carry on using it. Or we may realise that X is in fact hurtful or prejudicial, and we stop using it. That, it seems to me and I suspect it seems to you, is as it should be. I continue to use the phrase "brainstorm". I have stopped using the phrase that is the diminutive of Pakistani; I meant no conscious hurt by it when I used it (just as I'm sure Prince Harry didn't) but I've come to realise it does convey hurt and prejudice so I've stopped using it, as I presume Prince Harry has, and as I'm going to assume you have, if you ever did use it.
We both agree that sometimes people are over-zealous and try to impose standards that go too far. It makes sense that there should be a word to describe that phenomenon. The reason I prefer to avoid "political correctness" is that PC has acquired a much wider meaning than merely the phenomenon you describe of the NHS or the Police trying to ban "brainstorm". It's become code for "I can't be arsed to think about whether my language is hurtful to other people, and I really don't want to have to think about it because the people who would be hurt are probably people I don't care about very much anyway so why should I care, and thinking through this sort of thing, let alone changing my vocabulary, sounds like hard work, and it's just more comfortable if I can pretend that it's all laughable excess, then I don't have to take responsibility myself for the effect of my own words and actions".
Which is why I say, let's junk "political correctness" and replace it with "politeness". It works quite well. The following are quite acceptable in the right context:
"It's politeness gone mad"
"Some people take politeness too far"
On the other hand, the following sound a bit odd:
"I don't believe in all this politeness rubbish"
"No-one's going to tell me to be polite"
