Dec 26, 2017 3 min read

In a fine example of calling a spade an implement for digging, the Trump administration has instructed Centers for Disease Control officials to eliminate seven terms from documents being prepared for next year’s budget. The list: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

Exactly why these words need be eliminated, no one seems to know. And, apparently, the orders suggested no alternative terms. Why? Maybe the administration thinks that Americans are confused by technical terms such as “fetus” and “transgender.” I’m willing to consider this because pre-surgery instructions I received last summer took great care to explain that “urinate” means “pee.”

Sure, substitute terms are available, but they sound even more effete. Moms- and dads-to-be, do you really want to ask a pediatrician to determine the sex of your “blastula?” Or the substitute term might be convoluted: Should those suffering anxiety attacks be said to have curled up in the “not yet fully developed human embryo-like” position?

Maybe we should use acronyms, which the government seems to love: FLOTUS; POTUS; SCOTUS – and the less frequently used term for Congress: GEOTUS (“Great Example of Totally Unbridled Stupidity.”) I like this idea! “Fetus” could become FTD: “Future Tax Deduction.” “Transgender” might be changed to NRSA: “Nether Regions Significantly Altered.”

Still, I can’t quite fathom the logic behind the ban, although it seems to be a variation on the widely held belief that if you don’t talk about something – “global warming” or “cancer,” for example – the condition doesn’t exist.

And I don’t understand why, in order to make America great again, we need to eliminate words that a few people find objectionable. When I was a writer for my college newspaper, I sat through a 15-minute argument between our male editor-in-chief and a female copy editor. In an announcement for an upcoming student outing, he had written “everyone should bring his picnic basket.” The copy editor insisted that using “his” was an affront to womankind and should be changed to “his or her” picnic basket. They were on the verge of settling the question with two out of three falls when I suggested we use the phrase “a” picnic basket.

And I still cringe at well-intentioned but misguided attempts to make English gender-neutral. Maybe “police officer” and “firefighter” make more sense than “policeman” and “fireman.” But saying “utility access” cover rather than “manhole” cover still seems silly. And using “chairperson” rather than “chairman” invites the image of a talking recliner that counsels Alice during her adventures in Wonderland.

Banning seven words may seem innocuous now. But if we do, how long will it be before SCOTUS starts hearing thought-crime cases? If we must ban words, let’s do so unilaterally: For starters, eliminate the use of “alternative facts,” “losers” and “fake news.”

Altering your vocabulary doesn’t alter facts.

Saying that the 7th Cavalry was attacked at Little Big Horn by “Native American terrorists” rather than “Indians” doesn’t make Custer any less dead.