Pro choice – An expression designed to make support for killing babies seem not so bad.
Gay – A word borrowed to make homosexuality seem less offensive.
Homophobic/Homophobe – A slur toward people who don’t accept homosexuality.
Transphobic/Transphobe – A slur toward people who don’t accept transgenderism.
Trans male/Transmasculine/Person with a cervix – A female who identifies as a male.
Trans female – A male who identifies as a female.
Gender affirming care – Cosmetic attempts to change a person’s gender using surgery and hormone treatments.
MVP – The new name for Monkeypox. (This name was substituted so as to not adversely stereotype primates.)
Substance use or substance use disorder – The new designation for substance abuse.
Undocumented immigrant – The new name for an illegal immigrant or illegal alien to make it appear that they are not law breakers.
Sex assigned at birth – The new designation for a person’s actual gender.
Restroom – The new designation for a men’s or women’s restroom (to avoid designating a gender).
There is an expression that goes, “He who controls the language rules the world.” This quote is variously attributed to Joseph Stalin, Josef Goebbels, Saul Alinsky, and assorted other tyrants. It is also a prominent theme in George Orwell’s book 1984.
Certainly, language naturally changes over time – which is especially evident when you read something from a previous era in history. But those who want to control others take a deliberate approach to this and intentionally force these kinds of language changes on society.
Of course, it’s not just the words and phrases, such as the examples listed above, that are in play. In the era of mass and social media where only a handful of companies control all of the media outlets, we see where language is manipulated not only by forcing language changes, but also by controlling what people are even able to hear and see. For example, during the middle of the COVID scare, saying that getting the COVID shot and boosters was not necessary, or claiming that mask wearing was not essential to “stop the spread,” was not allowed. People who tried to promote opposing views were, literally, silenced, banned, and even fired from their jobs – even if the ones dissenting were experts on the topic.
So the question arises, why would people want to control language in the first place? Those who do are operating off of a set of worldview beliefs that are not biblical – these people are usually Naturalists.
Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. Along with this belief come some very profound implications.
Implications of Naturalism
1. There is no God, so no possibility of there being any kind of objectively real moral values that human beings should follow.
In order for objectively real moral values to exist, there must be some objectively real moral law giver. Without that, one person’s values are just as valid as any other person’s. So, if someone, or some group, can get into a power position to set the values for society, those values will rule. And if someone else comes along and gains power who has a different set of values, society’s values can change and the new values become dominant. Naturalism does not acknowledge any objectively real moral law giver, so there can be no such thing as objectively real moral laws that people should follow.
2. Since there is no God, human beings must make up their own morality.
Without the existence of an objectively real moral law giver, there is no other possibility but for the creatures that are self-consciousness to create their own morality. And since human beings are the only material creatures that have self-consciousness, the very notion of morality can only be derived from human will. There is no other possibility.
3.Since there is no God, there is no ultimate accountability for any action a person takes in life.
Of course, every society does have a set of moral values that govern it, so when people break society’s moral covenant, they will pay some kind of consequence. That said, if the moral value climate changes, the rules of society, as well as the consequences for breaking the rules, will also change. Thus, the accountability people have to the rules is purely temporal (changeable). In order for there to be ultimate accountability, there has to be an ultimate, unchangable set of rules. This is not possible if there is no objectively real transcendent rule maker.
4. Since there is no ultimate accountability, there is no reason people can’t take whatever measures they desire in order to accomplish their personal goals in life. The law of the jungle rules.
When one group of people don’t like the direction of society and they break its rules, they are definitely subject to receive some kind of sanction by society. However, since the rules and accountability to the rules are changeable, there is no reason those who don’t like the rules can’t “morally” take any action they deem necessary to change them – and those actions cannot be deemed immoral. For morality to have any kind of objective meaning, there must be an objectively real, transcendent moral law giver. Naturalism doesn’t acknowledge even the possibility of that being true. The one who can manage to gain power gets to set the rules (the law of the jungle).
5. Since people can take any measure they want to accomplish their desired goals, they can alter the language to denigrate opposing views and promote their own (even if it is deceitful or objectively false).
Without an objectively real moral law, any view of morality, and the expression of that morality, can be deemed true and right. One of the most powerful ways to enforce that is to manipulate the language in ways that don’t acknowledge the rightness (or even the existence) of values that oppose those in power.
Absolute Truth and Language
As an example of the principle just explained, one of the big fights going on in society these days relates to the transgender debate, and a very big part of this debate centers around the use of language. At the beginning of this article, some of the disputed language concepts were actually listed. These included:
Transphobic/Transphobe – A slur toward people who don’t accept transgenderism.
Trans male/Transmasculine/Person with a cervix – A female who identifies as a male.
Trans female – A male who identifies as a female.
Gender affirming care – Cosmetic attempts to change a person’s gender using surgery and hormone treatments.
The terms “transphobic”and “transphobe” are a made up words that were specifically designed to demonize anyone who disagrees with the transsexual agenda. The idea is that anyone who does not agree with that agenda hates and fears people who identify as transsexual.
The terms “trans male,” “transmasculine,” and “person with a cervix” are words and phrases that were made up in order to provide vocabulary to affirm something that doesn’t actually exist. Each of these words refers to a female who self-identifies as a male. Since there is objectively nothing any female can do to become an actual male, those who wish to pretend they are male needed a way to describe themselves based on their fantasy.
The term “trans female” is a made up word designed to provide a male who identifies as a female a way for conceive of his fantasy. As with the concept of “trans male” above, there is nothing any male can objectively do to become a female. DNA is established at conception, and the most any male can do to achieve their fantasy is to pretend.
Gender affirming care is a euphemism to describe medical treatments to help self-identified transgender people play out their fantasy of changing sexes. These treatments can include such things as taking hormones and undergoing surgery, as well as receiving various kinds of psychological counseling.
The example of transgenderism is simply one example of how language is being used to distort the truth. In actual fact, a person can’t change their sex and there are only two genders. The attempt to base reality on a relativistic foundation in order to justify a preferred point of view as legitimate, as opposed to actual reality, is simply not legitimate. It is a fantasy.
The same principle holds true when people attempt to do the same thing concerning abortion, homosexual marriage, the name of a disease, various kinds of illegal activity, or anything else. Reality exists in an objectively real way, and that doesn’t change no matter how a person tries to describe it using deceptive language.
Naturalism assumes that all of reality is based on an objectively quantifiable foundation that can be verified by science. But when it comes to non-empirical matters that can’t be evaluated by science (like beliefs, morals, and values), they go full steam ahead and just make up stuff. It is simply not real. In order to be able to claim that something is objectively right or wrong, there has to be an objectively real standard to measure morality by – which Naturalism simply does not acknowledge to exist.
The truth is, though, there is an objectively real moral law giver, and He has revealed to us how reality operates – to include beliefs, morals, and values. It is only Christian Theism that is able to give us an absolute truth that is able to be a legitimate foundation for the use of language.
So how is a Christian to deal with this? The solution is simply to be aware of fantasy words, refuse to use them, and not let people get away with using them. The solution for lies is the truth. Don’t be intimidated by the lies.
© 2023 Freddy Davis