The latest viral moment from Capitol Hill came this week in a committee hearing when a Republican chairman introduced a male member as “mister.” What’s the problem? That male member wears a skirt and “identifies” as a woman, so the predictable leftist meltdown ensued. How disrespectful! (See video to the right)
But is it disrespectful … or honest? Should we care how leftists prefer their pronouns – or is this just a silly debate? Who is it really harming anyway?
Language is one of humanity’s most powerful tools. It allows us to communicate precisely: we convey truth, navigate the world, and foster understanding between individuals. But what happens when words no longer have concrete, mutually understood meaning? When definitions shift based on subjective feelings rather than objective reality, communication – and precision – is threatened. And threatening reality is entirely the point for the Left.
Nowhere is this linguistic instability more apparent than in the ongoing debate over pronouns and gender. Across institutions, workplaces, and even legal systems, there is growing pressure to use pronouns based not on biological reality but on personal identity claims. This shift may seem, to some, like a harmless accommodation or practicing respect … but in truth, it erodes truth and leads to harmful, real-world impacts.
Language exists to convey reality
Words are not merely social constructs; they are our means of describing the world as it is. We say “tree” to refer to a tree, not because it is offensive to call it anything else, but because of the common understood definition to describe with language an actual, physical object in existence. When I say “Look at that tree,” you’re not going to scan the landscape for a book, a coffee cup, or a television. I’m describing concrete physical reality with words.
Likewise, terms like “man” and “woman” have a commonly understood meaning, rooted in a definition of observable facts: chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, and biological function. To insist that a man can be called a woman – or vice versa – based purely on self-perception is to divorce language from its fundamental purpose: communicating reality precisely.
When language loses its anchor to reality and its precision, it becomes a tool of confusion rather than clarity. If "woman" no longer refers to an adult human female but to anyone who “feels” like a woman, then the word has lost its meaning entirely. The same applies to pronouns. If “he” and “she” are based on shifting personal preferences rather than objective biology, communication becomes an act of navigating ideological minefields rather than an exercise in truth-telling.
Even more dangerous, if “woman” no longer refers to an adult human female, then what becomes of the term “women’s sports” in reality? If “woman” is subjective to include whoever happens to feel like they belong in that category, then “women’s sports” does not have a discreet corresponding group in physical reality.
The slippery slope of subjectivity
Some argue that using self-identified pronouns is merely a form of politeness, akin to calling someone by their preferred name. But names are arbitrary; pronouns are not. Pronouns reflect sex, which has an undeniable, immutable biological basis. Once we accept that pronouns can be assigned based on personal identity rather than physical reality and fact, we open the door to an ever-expanding redefinition of words and an attempt to redefine reality.
If a man can be a woman simply by declaring it, then why not extend this principle further? Can age be redefined? Can race? Can species? These questions may seem extreme now, but they follow the same logic. If truth is determined by subjective self-perception rather than objective reality, then no definition is safe from reinterpretation.
The consequences of a linguistic free-for-all
The insistence on using subjective pronouns does not simply impact personal interactions – it has real-world consequences. In law, in medicine, and in education, clarity and precision matter. Discreet categories matter. When courts refer to men as “women,” it affects issues like women's sports, shelters, and prisons. When doctors are required to prioritize gender identity over biological sex, it can lead to medical malpractice or irreversible bodily harm, as male and female bodies are different in reality. In schools, forcing children to use pronouns that contradict biological reality confuses rather than educates them.
More broadly, when people are compelled to use language that contradicts observable truth, it is not just an inconvenience – it is an act of enforced dishonesty. Speaking truthfully should never be punishable or even just socially unacceptable.
The need to ground language in reality
For society to function, we must maintain linguistic definitions that align with reality. Words like “man” and “woman,” and the pronouns associated with them, must remain tethered to biological truth and reality.
These are not hypothetical concerns or merely indicative of a culture war. Documented harms stem from the insistence that language reflects identity rather than biological reality. When words lose their grounding in truth, policies built on those words and legal precedent become detached from reality as well – leading to further injustice and harm in reality.
The moment we surrender objective language in favor of fluid, subjective interpretations, we lose more than words – we lose our shared grasp on reality. And a society untethered from reality cannot long endure.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
