Linguistic Evolution is Inevitable But Not Always Benign

I remember reading Orwell’s 1984 in high school and hating it. I was a teenager more interested in robots, aliens, blasters, and adventure, than in the dystopia and dialogue of 1984, and the depth of Orwell’s analysis of authoritarian regimes was wasted on me. Times have changed and while the novelty and excitement of Star Wars has faded over time, the importance of Orwell has become more apparent. Among other things, Orwell’s fiction is responsible for the term “double-speak” which emerged to describe language that “deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.” In a previous article, I described how politicians and the media lie and manipulate language to confuse an issue. Activists also do this but have taken the practice a step further by attempting to change the definition of words to remake the world.

While activists on both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of attempting to manipulate their audience, I tend to focus more on the left as they are better able to frame their goals in friendly terms and more likely to attract followers. While extremists on the left (ex. communists) argue that their goals will lead to “the betterment of humanity,” extremists on the right (ex. white supremacists) tend to frame their purpose as “the betterment of us.”

An obvious example is the abortion debate in which activists frame their beliefs as either “pro-choice” or “pro-life” rather than pro- or anti-abortion. Abortion is an ugly term, but who can be against choice or life? People bypassing immigration to enter the country are no longer illegal immigrants but are instead “undocumented workers” because “people aren’t illegal.” That may be true, but they can still be criminals. One wonders if these same activists would agree to renaming bank robbers “unauthorized money withdrawers.” Lest one start to believe that the left is more guilty of this practice that the right, beware “the death tax!”

Worse than the use of spin, however, are attempts to redefine words to make the world align with one’s worldview. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the world of trans activism where efforts are underway to redefine the words “woman” and “man.” Put aside 400 years of Enlightenment thought and the science of biology for a moment (and the need to believe that pronouns are magic words that can make people something they are not). Including trans women in the definition of the word “women” would not provide the inclusiveness they demand, but would instead necessitate the creation of a new word that encompasses only biological women. We see this struggle in some news articles today as those wishing to be “inclusive” now refer to biological women as “people who menstruate.” while absurd sentences such as “…raping two women with her penis” begin to appear in articles. Even Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary has expanded its definition of female to include “gender identity.” Biology applies to the animal kingdom but apparently, humans are now something else.

Trans activists have muddied up the linguistic waters in other ways as well. No longer satisfied with “him” or “her,” activists have now created upwards of 100 pronouns to select from including “they,” and in the process rendering the following meaningless:

Bill, who identifies as a “she”, is talking with Jen, who identifies as a “they.” As lunch approaches, they decide to get a bite to eat at a restaurant. They have a nice meal after which they pay for it and go home.

It is impossible in this situation to determine if “they” refers to Bill and Jen or just Jen.

Trans activists are by no means the only activists engaged in the corruption of the English language. Others have begun to use verbs rather than nouns to leverage the politics of victimhood to turn physical attributes and economic conditions from accidents of birth or unfortunate circumstances (or bad choices) into something that society has done to people. Individuals no longer belong to a race but are instead “racialized.” People are not born male or female but are “assigned a gender.” The poor, drug addicts, the handicapped, and visible minorities are “marginalized.” Activists require victims to “defend” and thankfully through the use of verbs they have created a seemingly endless supply of customers.

Some argue that this is a passing fad and that activists will “grow out of it.” However, it is in many ways too late as radical attempts to redefine the English language for ideological purposes are already entrenched in the faculties of most universities. No longer do “scholars” put aside their personal biases when examining primary sources. They are instead encouraged to adopt the “correct” bias and to become activists despite it being tantamount to a confession that they already know why events happen (ex. racism) and need only handpicked the facts to back it up.

In some instances, historians have become more focused on language than on history, engaging in debating whether to use the term “slaves” or “the enslaved,”. Those advocating the use of the latter claim it makes it clearer that slaves were forced into slavery (one wonders how many people thought slavery was a voluntary condition). This does nothing to advance our understanding of the past or improve the lives of the slaves in any way (nothing can), but it certainly drives Twitter followers and allows these historians to present themselves as virtuous for having the courage to oppose 18^th Century slavery. A rare and heroic stance indeed.

Putting aside slang and the natural evolution of language there is at least one other reason that the meaning of words changes and that is to spare peoples’ feelings or to be inclusive or if I may speak more broadly, to be nice. The desire to let people pick their own gender is one example of this. Efforts to modify language are often less politically motivated and consequently less overt than the trans activists’ efforts. New words often arise when existing words take on negative connotations. “Moron,” “idiot,” and “retardation,” were once medical terms that, once popularized and turned into insults, had to be replaced by new terms. The desire to spare people’s feelings is admirable however it does nothing in the long run as people will eventually adopt the new term as an insult such as when a person asks, “are you special?” as a way to imply stupidity.

The evolution of the English language is inevitable and usually benign. New technologies arise that require new terms and words fall from use and are replaced by others. Linguistic manipulation however must be resisted. Edgar Allan Poe suggested that you “[b]elieve nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.” To this, I would add, base your actions on objective reality. Changing the definition of “women” will not make a biological male a female, it will just require the creation of new words that enable us to communicate effectively. “A rose is a rose is a rose,” or put less poetically, things are what they are. Perhaps we should learn to accept this and focus on building stronger people rather than obsessing over people’s feelings.