Whether the NHS should have a “Race and Health Observatory” is a matter for another time, but it is pleasing to see that, after consultation with the public, the body has recommended scrapping its use of the problematic term “BAME”.

BAME – which is sometimes said to mean “Black And Minority Ethnic”, and other times “Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic” – is a catch-all acronym designed to refer to non-white people. Dr Tony Sewell’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities similarly recommended that it no longer be used earlier this year. His argument was that it is increasingly irrelevant. As the NHS Race and Health Observatory correctly identified, it “crudely conflates” very different sets of people. Interestingly, that organisation’s survey and focus groups found that the term was also deeply unpopular, including among the people it is supposedly meant to benefit.

I’m not surprised, because BAME a bizarre idea on many counts. First, it makes very little sense in practical terms to treat these groups as indistinguishable. Some ethnic minorities tend to do much better at school than others, for example. There are many areas in our society in which Black African people attain far better outcomes than both Black Caribbean and White British people.

Even in public health, BAME makes little sense and it could even be said to be harmful. When it comes to collecting data for medical purposes, for example, an issue that predominantly affects Black Afro-Caribbean people, such as sickle cell anaemia, may be far less relevant to people from an Indian or Pakistani background.

But there are other problems with BAME, not least the fact that it is demeaning to ethnic minority people. Non-white people are defined not as individuals, nor even by their own particular backgrounds. The BAME mantra actively erases both of those. If you are labelled BAME, it means that you are only seen through the prism of the fact that you aren’t white.

It is also ideological. I would argue that it is part of the same toxic theory that has brought us “white privilege” and “hierachies of oppression”. Too often, it is used to support the dangerous idea that some people are always at a disadvantage because they happen to have a particular skin colour, while others always benefit because of theirs.

Unfortunately BAME – and other terms used to refer to ethnic minority people as some sort of bloc – are still widespread in public bodies and businesses. The Church of England even seems to have invented its own term, UKME – United Kingdom Minority Ethnic.

But if public bodies truly want to address racial inequalities, they need to start looking at different demographics in more detail. And if social justice actually does mean addressing inequality, surely all inequalities must be observed, including the poor outcomes faced by white working class people?

BAME is a particularly problematic term when it comes to mixed race people like me. We tend to be lumped into the BAME bracket by default for not being entirely white, thus disregarding half of our heritage, ethnicity and culture. But why should anyone have to choose a camp when they belong to both?

Certainly, there is racism in the UK that needs to be stamped out. But as Sewell argued so powerfully in his report, this is not an institutionally racist country and non-white people do not constantly need to be told that they are at a disadvantage. So yes, scrap BAME. Better yet, how about we try treating people as individuals and leave the labels out of it entirely?