Eichenberger: The Linguistic Assault on Reality
by Dan Eichenberger M.D.
Language remains one of humanity’s most powerful tools. Spoken words helped early humans cooperate, hunt and pass down knowledge. Written language allowed civilizations to record laws, ideas and stories for future generations. Today, language is under attack. The political Left, particularly progressive activists who dominate many colleges, news outlets and major corporations, has increasingly weaponized words. Terms are stretched, flipped and redefined to make questionable ideas sound normal and to make dissent seem unacceptable. This is not simply natural language evolution. It is an effort to reshape society by first changing the meaning of words.
Words should help us understand reality and describe things in a complicated world. We do not define truth; we discover truth and use words to convey it. Adjectives, descriptors and extra phrases add details without changing the main word’s meaning. Take the “Underground Railroad.” This was a secret network in the 1800s that helped enslaved Black people escape to freedom. “Underground” meant hidden. “Railroad” used the image of trains to convey speed and movement of individuals. No one intended this description to change what a real railroad was: a system of tracks and trains. The words described; they did not rewrite facts.
For Christians, language has deeper meaning because John calls Christ the Logos—the divine source of reason, truth and order. Since God created an ordered reality, words should describe that reality rather than reshape it. Language is meant to communicate truth, not merely express feelings or serve power. The closer words stay tied to reality, the closer we come to wisdom; when they drift from truth, confusion follows.
Now look at today’s examples. For thousands of years, across nearly every culture and religion, marriage was known and accepted as the union of one man and one woman. It was tied to building families, raising children and creating stable societies.
“Gay marriage” started as a phrase to describe same-sex unions. At first, it seemed like a simple add-on, but it quickly became a demand to change the very core meaning of marriage. In the same way, “Trans woman” was presented as a kind way to refer to men who identify as women. These seemed like harmless modifiers at first, but they quickly turned into full attacks on basic definitions. The word “woman” has always meant an adult human female, defined by chromosomes, genetics, biology and the ability to produce eggs. Now schools and governments insist feelings can override biology. They push terms like “birthing persons” and “chest feeders” to avoid saying “mother” or “woman.” This is not kindness. It is erasing real biology to fit feelings and political agendas. Human sex has always been binary and always will. Pretending otherwise does not make it true.
This pattern extends to other terms. “Christian Nationalism” is often applied broadly to Christians who believe their faith should influence their views on public morality. “Zionist,” which once primarily referred to support for a Jewish homeland in Israel, is frequently used as a political insult. The labels “Hitler” and “Nazi” are commonly thrown at opponents to generate outrage rather than understanding. Even “tolerance,” once understood as peacefully allowing disagreement, is often treated as requiring full acceptance of particular beliefs.
This strategy works because language shapes how people think. Words are like maps, not the territory itself. They help us navigate reality, but when they become disconnected from facts, they stop describing the world and start creating alternative versions of it.
The COVID era demonstrated this clearly. Early discussion of a possible laboratory leak was dismissed as conspiracy theory or racism. Questions about lockdowns, school closures, natural immunity and vaccine side effects were frequently labeled misinformation. Many Americans saw a system where certain viewpoints were protected while others were suppressed.
The result is a culture where repetition often substitutes for evidence. Schools teach that gender is independent of biological sex. Companies enforce pronoun policies. Governments allow legal sex changes based primarily on self-identification. Ideas that would have seemed controversial only a few years ago are increasingly presented as settled fact.
In some countries, restrictions go even further. Nations such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada have hate-speech laws that critics argue are vague enough to punish unpopular opinions. Without clear definitions, terms like “hate speech” can become tools for suppressing dissent.
Double standards intensify the problem. During the 2020 BLM protests, riots in some cities caused extensive damage and loss of life, yet much media coverage emphasized the protests as “mostly peaceful.” By contrast, the January 6 Capitol riot was rightly condemned but led to widespread prosecution and scrutiny of conservative rhetoric.
These trends are not random. Progressives hold significant influence in universities, news organizations, corporate HR departments and technology companies. Critics argue that vague labels such as “racist,” “transphobic,” or “hate speech” are often used not to promote clarity but to discourage disagreement.
The consequences are serious. When words no longer correspond to reality, honest discussion becomes difficult. Problems cannot be addressed if people are afraid to describe them accurately. Trust in institutions declines because people feel they are being manipulated rather than informed.
George Orwell warned about “Newspeak,” a language designed to narrow thought and limit what people could express. When language is carefully managed to favor one ideology, independent thinking becomes more difficult.
History repeatedly shows that distorted language often precedes abuses of power. Reality does not change because institutions adopt new definitions or because dictionaries update their entries. Biological facts, human nature and objective reality continue to exist regardless of political preferences or opinions.
The solution is not censorship from the opposite side. It is a renewed commitment to clear definitions, open debate, evidence-based reasoning and free speech. We should defend the right of people to express differing viewpoints, even when we disagree with them.
The fight over language is ultimately a fight over truth itself. If words lose their connection to reality, society loses its ability to pursue knowledge, solve problems and preserve freedom. The stakes are too high to ignore.
Dan Eichenberger, M.D., M.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is an Indiana native with 30 years experience as a primary care physician, physician executive and healthcare consultant. He is the recipient of the Indiana University Southeast Chancellors Medallion.
Comments...