The English language will continue to evolve in spite of Trump's Orwellian purge of woke words. 

click to enlarge

"We have met the enemy and he is us." So said Pogo, the titular character in a comic strip syndicated locally in The Salt Lake Tribune during the 1960s and 1970s. Pogo was an anthropomorphic possum created by Walt Kelly, and is remembered chiefly for his Orwellian observation—the enemy is us. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find a growing number of Republican normies invoking Pogo in their private conversations.

Neither would I be surprised to find MAGA Republicans thumbing through George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to brush up on Newspeak. A case could be made, I think, that the fictional language laid the groundwork for Donald Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway's defense of "alternative facts" in 2017.

In either case, words are foundational. As a longtime scribbler, I have become as fussy about words as a winemaker is about grapes. My fussiness took shape in a succession of English classes at Highland High School in an era when the enemy was godless commies, not woke lefties.

Talented teachers taught the rules of grammar. I spent hours diagramming sentences, so as to visualize which pronoun was nominative case ("who," for instance) and which was objective case ("whom").

I came to believe that the English language was governed by settled rules. That they might change never occurred to me, until I was introduced to the feminist coinage "Ms." in the late 1960s. Then came "s/he." I adopted it because it was useful: It eliminated the "he or she" construct that was "awk"—English teachers' shorthand for "awkward."

Other conventions dialed down the awkwardness of "he or she." It became acceptable to use "one," as in this example: "With regard to Pogo's judgment, one can say whatever one wants."

Another convention simply uncoupled "he" from "she." Consider this example—"Every Utah legislator should have his or her own copy of Orwell's dystopian classic" becomes "Every Utah legislator should have his own copy of Orwell's dystopian classic." The result may be grammatical, but the implication that no women are lawmakers is a glaring fault.

Yet another tool in the wordsmith's kit replaced "he or she" with "they" when the preconditions are met. The so-called "singular they" looks like this: "Anyone can juggle if they practice."

This "they" was the American Dialect Society's word of the year in 2015. The choice was based on the pronoun's "growing use to refer to known persons whose gender identities don't conform to the binary of 'she' and 'he'." (In Trumpspeak, it represents "misguided gender ideology.")

I am not an early adopter. I have ignored "Mx." as a replacement for "Mr." I have not switched "actress" for "actor." I have no qualms about using "guy" as a gender-neutral slang in conversation. I could ask a group of women: "Are you guys going to Victoria's Secret?" But would I write it? No more than I would write: "Pogo confirmed those guys are the enemy and they are us."

In conversation, I sometimes use the "singular they" spontaneously. But when I encounter one in print, the effect is as jarring as an unexpected stumble.

My insensitivity to those for whom gender is an issue is nothing to be proud of. That said, my shortcomings are widely shared.

In his new book, Pronoun Trouble, John McWhorter (a prominent linguist and author of 23 books) cites a survey that speaks to my experience. It seems that the Gen Z guys under 35 have a pretty high usage rate for the "singular they." However, that is not the case with those over 55. Old dogs like me resist learning new tricks.

Following his inauguration, one of Trump's first executive orders directed federal workers to wipe their email signature blocks clean of gender-related pronouns (thereby "restoring biological truth," in Trumpspeak.) Then, press secretary Karoline Leavitt laid down the law to the news media: "As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios," she e-mailed to The New York Times.

Another government spokesperson, Katie Miller, wrote that signatures with preferred pronouns "ignore scientific realities and therefore ignore facts." Where is Ms. Conway when the White House needs her?

The Trump administration has also called out hundreds of words to be expunged from government documents and web sites. Why such an Orwellian purge? Because the words promote "misguided gender ideology" and tend to be associated with diversity, equity and inclusion policies. No surprise that "they" made the list and is slated to be disappeared like "Gulf of Mexico."

The Trump word purge evokes the argument between Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the master is a totalitarian government. It employs Newspeak to erode critical thinking within the population.

In 2025, our post-truth age has its own masters of mendacity and manipulation. They are ensconced in congress. A growing number of them refuse to attend town meetings in their home districts.

A potential reaction to modern times from Pogo? "I'd give them a piece of my mind if I could find it! I mean, them!" C

Private Eye is off this week. Send feedback to

comments@cityweekly.net