The Tyranny of Style Guides: Pronouns, Neopronouns, and the Power of Words

How linguistic manipulation reshapes reality through institutions and language itself

Linguists have long understood that language is power. Words don’t just describe reality—they shape it. Style guides, dictionaries, and institutional norms have always played a crucial role in setting the boundaries of acceptable language. Yet when those boundaries are deliberately manipulated, language becomes a tool not for clarity, but for control.

The pronoun debate—starting with “preferred pronouns” and culminating in ze/zir, bunself, and tree/treeself—is not about kindness or inclusivity. It is about forcing compliance with an ideology by rewriting the rules of language.

This is where style guides come in.

Style Guides as Weapons of Authority

From The Associated Press Stylebook to The Chicago Manual of Style, professional style guides dictate how writers, journalists, and institutions use language. They provide the scaffolding of public communication: what to capitalize, how to use punctuation, and which words are acceptable for describing the world.

Historically, style guides have evolved slowly, reflecting cultural consensus rather than enforcing it. Yet in recent years, style guides have become weapons for activism—tools for linguistic revolution, often at the expense of clarity and truth.

The Associated Press Stylebook now mandates that writers respect “preferred pronouns” and use they/them as singular pronouns. A demand once relegated to niche activist circles is now a formalized rule in mainstream journalism. Reality is obfuscated by enforced language, as writers are instructed to prioritize identity claims over clear communication.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Consider the recent changes in academic publishing. The American Psychological Association (APA) Style Guide now suggests writers avoid terms like mother or father in favor of “gender-neutral” alternatives like parental figure. Similarly, the AMA Manual of Style, used in medical writing, encourages the avoidance of biological sex by substituting terms such as gestational parent for “mother.” A search of medical articles on Google Scholar for the phrase “pregnant people” in the title since 2018 yielded over 500 results. These are not neutral decisions. They strip words of their clarity and obscure material reality under the guise of inclusivity.

Even dictionaries have joined the fray. In 2020, Merriam-Webster added a new definition of they to mean “a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary.” While dictionaries once documented language as it evolved organically, they now play an active role in shaping cultural norms. Words are redefined not to clarify meaning, but to enforce ideological positions.

Neopronouns: From Style to Chaos

Once the linguistic dam broke, neopronouns flooded in. Ze/zir, fae/faer, bun/bunself—pronouns that bear no relation to sex, grammar, or reality—have now entered activist discourse. These words are not natural evolutions of language. They are ideological inventions.

Here’s the thing about style guides: by codifying language, they give it legitimacy. The mere act of inclusion transforms nonsense into something “official.” Once enough institutions normalize ze/zir as a pronoun set, refusing to use it will not just be unfashionable—it will be heresy.

This isn’t about linguistic diversity or creativity. It’s about control. Neopronouns serve no communicative purpose. They do not clarify who someone is. Instead, they demand that others participate in an individual’s self-concept—often at the expense of their own principles.

Linguistics and Reality: The Disruption of Shared Meaning

Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure taught us that language works through shared symbols. A tree is a tree because we agree that the word refers to a tall, woody plant. The system works because words have meaning—agreed-upon, stable meanings rooted in reality.

Pronouns historically functioned as linguistic shortcuts for biological sex. They help us navigate the world without constantly restating someone’s name or their sex. By insisting that pronouns no longer correlate to sex—or worse, by inventing entirely new sets of pronouns—we shatter that shared meaning.

The result is confusion. A pronoun like bun/bunself tells us nothing about the speaker except that they demand linguistic obedience. It is not descriptive, it is performative.

And when language ceases to describe reality, it becomes impossible to communicate it.

Who Decides? The Institutional Capture of Words

The style guide is not neutral. It carries authority because it tells writers what to do. But who gets to decide what the rules are?

Organizations like the AP, The New York Times, and GLAAD exert immense influence over language. Their decisions on pronouns, gender-neutral terms, and “inclusive” language are not reflections of organic linguistic change. They are ideological prescriptions, enforced from the top down.

Consider recent developments in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world. In a 2021 cover article, the journal referred to women as “bodies with vaginas,” reducing women to anatomical parts in the name of gender neutrality. Words that once communicated clear meaning—like “woman” or “mother”—are systematically erased.

Similarly, the National Institutes of Health now uses terms like egg-producer or chestfeeding parent in its official publications. These shifts are not evolution of language—they are political choices to obfuscate sex and replace it with gender ideology.

Style guides, medical journals, and dictionaries are institutions of authority. When they rewrite language, they rewrite reality.

The Consequences: Reality on the Chopping Block

When words lose their connection to reality, truth becomes subjective, and meaning becomes meaningless.

• Women cease to exist as a coherent category because “woman” becomes “anyone who identifies as such.”

• Lesbians—women attracted to women—are pressured to accept males who claim she/her pronouns as part of their orientation.

• Children, confused by language and ideology, are told they can be ze, fae, or even catself—whatever they feel.

This linguistic breakdown does not free anyone. It traps us in a world where language reflects ideology, not reality.

Reclaiming Language: Resisting the New Rules

What can we do in the face of this linguistic revolution? We can refuse to comply.

• Speak plainly. Call men “he” and women “she.”

• Resist style guides that mandate ideological language.

• Challenge the institutional capture of words and insist on their connection to material reality.

Language matters because words matter. When institutions redefine words to obscure sex, erase women, and confuse children, they are not helping society—they are dismantling its foundation.

It’s time to reclaim language as a tool for truth, not tyranny. The style guides don’t own our words.

In the end, this is about more than pronouns. It’s about the power of words to define reality—and the responsibility to resist when they are weaponized to erase it.