Convoluting Language is Not the Path to Kindness

The speed at which our language is being changed is as dizzying as the particular changes are mind-numbing. In theory, we’re moving toward a kinder, more “inclusive” language, but if this is how we’re going to get there, maybe communicating by grunts would be more efficient.

Preparing the other week for Zippy the Wonder Snail I read one too many pieces referring to “former President Trump” and knew I had to rant. My thoughts on the last occupant of the White House were not relevant to the rant, because it is about language, not the quality of a candidate.

When I learned the proper forms of our the English language as a kid, the language as it had functioned for centuries, I learned that those who held certain offices, such as president, were to be referred to by their titles. This was true even after those persons’ time occupying the said offices had passed.

Yes, President Trump is no longer the current president, but properly speaking, he should be addressed as President Trump. Likewise, Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama and others who once occupied the position of head of America’s executive branch. We were to do that for governors, judges and others holding “honorable” positions, too.

Call it quaint, but referring respectfully to those who had served added a gentle respect to our society that the now eager prefixing former President does not. After all, we can divine one’s politics by how quickly “former” occupies a person’s references to an office holder. Many people who consistently call President Trump “Former President Trump,” have no such compunction when referring to President Obama. (Or vice versa if you favor Trump over his immediate predecessor.)

We were better for the simpler address that showed respect, rather than “polite” disdain for less favored titleholders. In losing that, we have made language more awkward while making it harder to get along with each other.

So too the last few years’ juggling of language regarding the sexes. For all of history, language operated around the two biological sexes. One’s place in the equation of perpetuating the human race was a straightforward component of our defining of men and women, but references to men and women were holistically referring to people, not functions. It did not feel oddly overly personal to refer to someone as male or female.

A person in a time machine from, say, the 1990s might wonder why I would write the above paragraph, but it is this: as the prevailing winds have insisted those terms refer to one’s identity separated from biology, wordsmiths (if they can merit that title) have needed to craft new ways to refer to certain unchangeable biological characteristics such as if one can — or, at one point, could — give birth to another human being or not.

Say what you will about the state of the debates this shift in language descends from, does anyone feel that it is better that we are now supposed to refer to “birthing persons” and “non-birthing persons”? The Department of Labor recently one-upped that with its “menstruating employees” advice. The language ends up off the scales of cringeworthiness with its (inappropriate) personal references unneeded heretofore.

Hear me out: as with my first observation, this need not be about whether one supports “trans-rights” or not. Let’s simply think about communicating information in an intelligible way. Let’s think about being kind and respectful and tasteful.

For decades now, people have talked about the challenges of politically correct language. Allegedly, when we moved to renaming a struggle as “[the opposite positive thing plus] challenged,” rather than using the preexisting term, we were trying to acknowledge what people went through without dehumanizing them.

Good. So what are we doing as we keep going further with language? Take the two examples above and see how they do the opposite: language meant to affirm trans rights necessitates defining people by bodily processes in differing situations that previously had appropriate, gentler and more holistic phrases. Terms like “man,” “woman,” “mother” and “father” have existed in languages for millennia and didn’t narrow people to such.

Likewise, terminology that has crept into how we refer to officeholders hasn’t improved information conveyance or politeness. No, it has managed to give us another way to announce our affiliation and make us more tribal with each other.

The problem is that we assume if we juggle our words, we will solve the relational challenges humanity faces. Renaming things can make situations worse, but rarely makes them better.

Do we want to be kinder? Do we want to avoid marginalizing people? We will never accomplish that with new labels. We will accomplish that by following the Bible, which says that every person is made in God’s image and worthy of care.

Dignity given by God, not dictionary alterations, makes the world better. That’s something we can’t redefine.