If it's not models referred to as "girls" in fashion mags or seemingly any young women bizarrely becoming "girls" when they're referenced in newspapers, women are put in a pointless "ladies" box that doesn't translate for men.

Unless you're the Queen's PA, are married to a knight or baronet, or gave birth to Jesus, what does "Lady" even mean? It's a pointless, lingering moniker that nods towards a regressive notion of "acceptable" behaviour for woman to abide by.

Yet we have "Ladies Day" at the races, women's football teams called "Ladies FC" and "leading ladies." The latter has the bonus of alliteration but does that really justify using it above "leading women" given no one is ever called a "leading gentlemen"? (While we're on it, can I ever make a gentleman's agreement?)

These gripes may seem trivial but the devil is in the detail.

Slipping the occasional "girls" into a breezy article on dating or fashion may seem friendly or even flattering in a culture where looking youthful is seen as an indisputable goal for women, but ultimately it's quietly diminishing one gender's age and experience. A subtle double whammy that may not be noticeable at first glance, but is subconsciously giving the green light to reducing and infantilizing women.

Given that the terms "glamour girls" and "ladies of the night" are still thrown around in some arenas but there are no chairgirls or businessladies, please newspapers and magazines, lets stick to the facts and call "women" what they are.

Enough 'girls' and 'ladies' - we're women