The Merriam-Webster dictionary's 2024 word of the year, "polarization," perfectly encapsulates the current sociopolitical climate. This division seems to have intensified since 2016, leading to a linguistic battleground where words are weaponized and redefined to fit specific narratives. The left, in particular, has engaged in this practice, altering existing terms and inventing new ones to align with their ideology.

One striking example is the inclusion of "womyn" in the Scripps National Spelling Bee's word list. This alternative spelling of "women" is often used by feminists who believe the inclusion of "man" in "woman" implies female subordination. This adoption by a prominent institution like Scripps, which cites Merriam-Webster as its source, highlights the increasing acceptance of such altered language. Even the typically left-leaning Urban Dictionary acknowledges the term's controversial origins.

The debate extends beyond "womyn" to encompass other terms like "birthing person" and "Latinx." The attempt by the National Education Association (NEA) to replace "mother" and "father" with "birthing parent" and "non-birthing parent" sparked significant backlash. While the NEA ultimately abandoned this proposal, it underscores the ongoing effort to reshape language around gender identity.

Similarly, the Associated Press Stylebook has endorsed phrases like "pregnant people" and "people seeking abortions" to be more inclusive. This move, along with the NIH's recommendations to avoid gendered language like "men and women" in favor of "everyone" or "all," further illustrates the push for gender-neutral terminology. The promotion of terms like "chestfeeding" instead of breastfeeding showcases the extent of these linguistic shifts.

The term "Latinx," intended as a gender-neutral alternative to "Latino/a," has also faced resistance. Despite efforts to promote its use, Pew Research indicates low adoption among Latino adults. Undeterred, some have proposed "Latine" as a replacement, highlighting the persistent pursuit of gender-neutral language, even in the face of public rejection.

This linguistic maneuvering is not limited to specific organizations or institutions; it has permeated the media landscape as well. CNN, for instance, has published articles defending the use of gender-inclusive language, even venturing into controversial territory with terms like "penis owners." This continuous push for linguistic change, even when met with criticism, suggests a deeper ideological battle being waged through language.

This relentless pursuit of redefining words raises concerns about the potential for language to be manipulated for political purposes. It also highlights the divide between those driving these changes and the general public, who may not embrace or even understand these new terms. The question remains: is this linguistic evolution a genuine step towards inclusivity or a form of linguistic engineering with unintended consequences?