Richards argued that women serving in the military should not be referred to as men, claiming Nato’s move would “recognise their contribution” and help tackle “patriarchal” attitudes.

However, Nana hit back, pointing out that words like “mankind” and “human” have always been gender-neutral in origin.

Speaking on The People’s Channel, Tom Harwood said: “But does any woman in this country actually mind being called ‘guys?’ I mean, if you say ‘hey guys,’ does any woman really take offence at that?”

She responded: “Well, at the end of the day, that’s up to them whether they do or not.

“So what I think we’re seeing here is a dissection of language in its most clinical form people looking for offence without understanding what these words originally meant.”

Richards said: “I don’t think it’s about offence. I think it’s about recognition of women’s contributions to society.”

Nana argued: “But as I’ve just explained where the words come from, does that not change your perspective?”

Richards stood firm in her response and said: “Ultimately, we use titles like ‘airman,’ which defines a woman as a man. They may take offence at that. And I think what Nato is trying to do is come up with inclusive language, as I mentioned, within the Women, Peace and Security agenda.”

Co-host Tom Harwood questioned whether Nato should be prioritising language over rising Russian aggression, warning that “surely we’ve got bigger threats here.”

Parliamentary criticism emerged swiftly, with Sir John Hayes of the Common Sense group condemning Nato’s linguistic priorities.

He argued the alliance should concentrate on protecting member nations rather than “corrupting people’s thinking”.

“Their job is to defend their member countries, such as the Baltic states, not to promote and defend the distortion of language,” Hayes stated.