War on words: Why pronouns must reflect reality

When language is no longer anchored to reality, it becomes a tool of confusion rather than clarity. The ongoing debate over pronouns and gender is a perfect example.

A viral moment from Capitol Hill came in March in a committee hearing when Rep. Keith Self (R-TX), committee chairman, introduced Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) using the title “mister.” McBride, who is biologically male, is the first transgender person elected to Congress. His introduction immediately aroused the ire of Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA).

“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order!” Keating scolded. “Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?”

Was Self being disrespectful or just being honest? Should we care if leftists choose their preferred pronouns – or is this just a silly debate? Who is it harming anyway?

Language is one of humanity’s most powerful tools. It allows us to convey truth, navigate the world, and communicate precisely. But what happens when words no longer have concrete, mutually understood meanings? Communication is threatened when definitions shift based on subjective feelings rather than objective reality. For the Left, perhaps threatening reality is entirely the point.

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 not based on biological reality but on personal identity claims. To some, this shift may seem like a harmless accommodation or a simple show of respect, but it erodes truth and leads to harmful, real-world consequences.

Language exists to convey reality

Words are not merely social constructs; they are our means of describing the world around us. We say “tree” to refer to a tree, not because it is offensive to call it anything else, but because we share the definition of the word that describes the object. When I say, “Look at that tree,” you are not going to scan the landscape for a book, a coffee cup, or a television. The word describes reality.

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: precisely communicating reality.

When language loses its precision and its anchor in reality, it becomes a tool of confusion rather than clarity. If woman no longer refers exclusively to an adult human female but describes anyone who feels like a woman, the word has lost its meaning. 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 act of truth-telling.

Even more dangerous, if woman no longer refers exclusively to an adult human female, then what is women’s sports? In reality, it doesn’t exist.

The slippery slope of subjectivity

Some argue that using self-identifying pronouns is merely a form of politeness, akin to calling someone by his or her preferred name. But names are arbitrary; pronouns are not. Pronouns reflect biological sex, which has an undeniable, immutable scientific basis. Once we accept that pronouns can be assigned based on so-called identity rather than physical reality, we open the door to an ever-expanding redefinition of words that attempts to redefine truth.

If a man can be a woman simply by declaring it, 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 misuse.

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, medicine, and 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.

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 socially unacceptable.

Language grounded in reality

For society to function, we must maintain linguistic definitions that align with reality. Words like man and woman and their associated pronouns must reflect biological truth and objective reality.

These are not hypothetical concerns or merely indicative of a war of values. 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, leading, ironically, to further injustice and harm, in reality . 

When 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. 

Editor’s Note: This commentary was adapted from a post by American Family News (afn.net) that later appeared on The Stand blog
(afa.net/thestand).