Language at the Crossroads of Reality

In a hospital operating room, a surgeon prepares to perform a hysterectomy. The patient’s medical records indicate that she is biologically female, yet her pronouns—”he/him”—suggest otherwise. The surgeon faces a dilemma: Should they honor the subjective identity presented in language or attend to the unalterable biological facts required by the procedure? Here, the question of identity is no longer a matter of abstract theory but one with immediate and practical consequences. In this room, words do not alter physical reality; biology dictates what the surgeon must do. No amount of linguistic accommodation can change the fact that this is a female body requiring medical attention.

This moment illustrates the profound implications of the pronoun debate. The insistence on using preferred pronouns that contradict biological sex is often framed as an act of kindness or respect. However, this practice raises deeper questions about the nature of truth, the purpose of language, and the ethical obligations we have to one another. The use of preferred pronouns that conflict with biological reality undermines metaphysical realism, distorts the ethical imperative of truthfulness, and promotes a dangerous epistemological relativism. These consequences, far from promoting respect, erode the foundations of rational discourse and human dignity.

The central thesis of this essay is that the use of pronouns disconnected from biological sex represents not only an ethical error but a fundamental rejection of objective reality. By analyzing the issue from metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological perspectives, we will demonstrate that prioritizing subjective identity over biological truth undermines the very fabric of society.

The Ontology of Identity: Truth as the Ground of Being

At the heart of the pronoun debate is a metaphysical question: What is the nature of human identity? According to Aristotle’s metaphysical realism, identity is grounded in ousia—the essence or nature of a being. Biological sex is not an arbitrary attribute; it is a fundamental aspect of human identity, woven into the very fabric of existence. In this view, “man” and “woman” are not fluid categories but objective realities, based on the immutable essence of one’s being.

Metaphysical realism asserts that these essences exist independently of human thought and are necessary for the coherence of identity. Biological sex, then, is not simply one aspect among many but integral to the very nature of a person. Attempts to redefine sex through linguistic and social conventions cannot alter the reality of these essences. The patient undergoing a hysterectomy may sincerely believe she is male, but this belief does not change the biological fact of her female anatomy. The body exists as it is, independent of how one feels about it.

This distinction between subjective experience and objective reality is critical for maintaining philosophical coherence. Feelings, while real and important, do not have the power to redefine material facts. Yet, proponents of gender identity theory argue that gender is a social construct and therefore flexible, while sex is biological and fixed. This distinction between sex and gender, however, only serves to confuse the issue. Social roles and cultural expectations may vary, but they do not negate the biological basis of sex.

The reality of biological sex cannot be altered by subjective experience or personal preference. The realist position holds that human beings are sexed creatures, and this aspect of identity is an essential characteristic of who they are. To deny this reality is to abandon truth in favor of illusion.

Metaphysical realism insists that words must correspond to reality if they are to be meaningful. To refer to a biologically female person as “he” or “they” is not simply a matter of politeness or social convention; it is an ontological error. Language that fails to reflect reality ceases to serve its primary purpose—to reveal the truth of the world. Once we sever language from the reality it is meant to describe, we engage in a process of eroding the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Language and Truth: The Ethical Demand for Correspondence

Language is humanity’s most powerful tool for communicating truth, and truth, as Aristotle understood it, is the correspondence between language and reality. In aletheia, truth is revealed when our words align with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. To speak falsely, to distort language for the sake of personal or ideological convenience, is to undermine the very foundation of ethical communication.

When we use pronouns that do not align with biological sex, we engage in a form of linguistic dishonesty. This is not a mere semantic issue; it is a violation of the ethical imperative to speak truthfully. Ethical communication relies on a shared commitment to reality. By insisting that we refer to people according to their subjective identities rather than their biological realities, we fracture the relationship between language and truth. The result is confusion and deception, not clarity or respect.

One might argue that using preferred pronouns is an act of kindness, a way of respecting an individual’s identity. But kindness cannot require us to lie. To participate in a falsehood, even for the sake of avoiding discomfort, is not a moral good; it is a betrayal of the ethical duty to align language with reality. True respect for others involves treating them as they are, not as they wish to be. Affirming someone’s subjective identity at the cost of reality is not an act of compassion—it is an evasion of truth.

This argument is often met with accusations of cruelty or insensitivity. However, true empathy involves engaging with reality, not enabling illusions. Kindness that requires us to speak falsely undermines the dignity of both the speaker and the recipient of the falsehood. Ethical communication is about more than making people feel good in the moment; it is about fostering a relationship with the truth that ultimately leads to personal and societal flourishing. We must have the courage to speak truthfully, even when it is difficult, because only truth can sustain meaningful human relationships.

Moreover, the abandonment of truth in language has practical consequences. In legal contexts, for instance, the insistence on using preferred pronouns has led to cases where biological males, identifying as females, have been allowed to compete in women’s sports or be incarcerated in women’s prisons. These situations reveal the absurdity of decoupling language from biological reality and demonstrate that such linguistic practices can lead to tangible injustices.

The Epistemological Consequences: The Risk of Relativism

Beyond the ethical implications, the use of preferred pronouns raises significant epistemological concerns. If language is no longer tethered to reality, what remains of our capacity to know and communicate truth? The insistence on using pronouns based on subjective identity rather than biological sex invites a form of epistemic relativism, where truth becomes malleable and personal rather than objective and universal.

Relativism in any form is philosophically self-defeating. If truth is relative, then the very claim that “truth is relative” must also be relative, and thus not universally binding. This leads to an untenable paradox: If all truths are equally valid, then no truth can be said to hold any real authority. In the case of gender, if the categories “man” and “woman” are fluid, then any knowledge we have about human beings—whether in medicine, law, or biology—becomes contingent on personal feelings rather than grounded in fact.

The consequences of this relativism are far-reaching. If we concede that individuals can redefine their gender based on subjective feelings, what prevents similar redefinitions in other areas of life? Why not allow people to redefine age, race, or even legal responsibilities according to how they feel? Once we sever language from reality, we open the door to the erosion of truth in all areas of knowledge. The very idea of objective reality becomes an illusion, replaced by a kaleidoscope of individual perspectives.

This epistemic relativism undermines the possibility of rational discourse. Without a shared commitment to truth, conversation devolves into a struggle for power, where the loudest voices or the most emotionally compelling narratives prevail. The objective standards that once governed knowledge and communication give way to a world in which personal identity and subjective feelings dictate the terms of reality.

The Critique of Social Constructivism: Identity and Reality

Proponents of the social constructivist view of gender often argue that gender is a fluid construct shaped by cultural norms and personal experiences. They claim that preferred pronouns are a way of respecting a person’s true identity as defined by their self-perception rather than their biology. However, this argument conflates the social construction of gender roles with the ontological reality of biological sex.

While it is true that cultural expectations around gender roles vary, these expectations do not alter the underlying biological reality. Gender expression may be socially constructed, but gender itself—rooted in biological sex—is not. To argue otherwise is to engage in a kind of philosophical sleight of hand, one that mistakes social roles for ontological truths.

The constructivist argument also contains an internal contradiction. If gender is entirely a social construct, then it has no intrinsic meaning and should not be treated as a core aspect of identity. In this view, gender becomes little more than a cultural artifact, a set of norms and behaviors with no real ontological significance. Yet, those who argue for the use of preferred pronouns often insist that gender identity is a deeply personal and essential aspect of who someone is. This essentialist claim, however, is incompatible with the constructivist framework, which denies the reality of stable identities.

The realist position offers a more coherent account of identity. It acknowledges that while gender roles may be influenced by culture, biological sex remains an objective and unchangeable feature of human identity. The refusal to use preferred pronouns that contradict this reality is not an act of bigotry or intolerance; it is a defense of truth, one that respects the integrity of language and the dignity of the person as a being grounded in reality.

The Moral and Ontological Imperative to Uphold Truth

The debate over pronouns is not just a matter of social convention or personal preference; it is a philosophical question about the nature of truth and the role of language in preserving that truth. The use of preferred pronouns that contradict biological sex undermines metaphysical realism, erodes ethical discourse, and promotes epistemological relativism. In short, it is an assault on the very foundations of reality.

We must resist the temptation to prioritize feelings over facts, kindness over truth. While empathy and respect are important, they cannot come at the cost of abandoning reality. To use language truthfully, to align our words with the world as it is, is not merely an intellectual exercise—it is a moral imperative. If we abandon this principle, we risk losing not only our grip on reality but also the possibility of meaningful communication, ethical integrity, and societal coherence.

In defending the use of pronouns that reflect biological reality, we are not engaging in a petty or political battle; we are standing up for the truth itself. The time has come to recognize that truth is not a negotiable concept, nor is reality subject to personal whim. The ethical and ontological imperative is clear: we must speak the truth, for only truth can preserve the integrity of language, knowledge, and the human person.