In the scheme of things, John Humphrys referring to the possibility of a trade war between the EU and China as 'handbags' on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday is not the most offensive thing I’ve heard this week (that would be “child porn” which does not exist – porn is a business, a sex act with a child is abuse).

Not spectacularly offensive then, just reductive, lazy…  and inaccurate, surely.  I’d have thought losing trade to China was serious but then – girlish giggle – what do I know?

'Handbags' is a well-worn trope, applied often to the temperamental shenanigans of footballers. It signifies a minor spat, something not worth serious analysis. It is an abbreviation of ‘handbags at dawn’, a little tiff between the ladies.

Really, men, you are woefully out of date.

Handbags are a serious business, economically and stylistically. They carry the stuff of our lives and they make a statement about who we are. We spend fortunes on them and imbue them with personality (see the Birkin, the Alexa). Using a handbag is powerful.

So 'handbags' means something rather different, if you’re not a sexist dinosaur. Perhaps I could suggest an alternative term for trivial disagreements: c*cksulkers.