Even For Words We Have Had Since The 14^th Century

Introduction

Language matters, but so does clarity, tradition, and intent. In recent years, there has been growing pressure to revise long-established workplace terms, such as replacing “chairman” with “chair”, to promote inclusivity. While well-intentioned, these changes raise important questions about whether altering familiar language truly advances equality or creates confusion and unnecessary division. Words like chairman have long been understood as role descriptors rather than literal statements about gender, and for many organisations they carry historical, legal, and cultural significance. Rather than reshaping language to fit shifting sensitivities, this article argues that the focus should remain on equal opportunity, fair treatment, and merit in the workplace, regardless of gender.

Man Words Do Not Need Changing

Many of the words in everyday use that contain the word Man were first used hundreds of years ago, and there seems to be no reason to stop using them now just because they contain the word Man. For example, the word Chairman, which has been in everyday use since the 17^th Century, actually means “the leader of a group, committee, or board, responsible for setting the agenda, ensuring effective debate, and guiding the organisation’s strategy and governance”. Obviously, a female can carry out the role because the definition is sexless. The creeping use of woke language is false and nonsensical in the belief that the word man has always meant male, and that its presence in job titles and common nouns is therefore exclusionary. This is historically illiterate nonsense: in Old English, mann meant human being, not male. The language already has gendered terms, and they are used when gender matters. Wokism ignores this because facts are inconvenient when you are trying to manufacture offence. So, activists lie, sometimes ignorantly, sometimes deliberately, and then demand the rest of society play along.

The campaign to eradicate words containing man (such as chairman, mankind, manpower, and fireman) is not about fairness, inclusion, or respect. It is an ideological shakedown dressed up as moral progress, carried out by people who confuse linguistic vandalism with virtue, and coercion with compassion. This is not language evolving; this is language being eradicated. Next, they might want to rename Manchester as Mamucium (its Roman name) and change Mancunian (a native or inhabitant of Manchester) to Mamucian, even though the terms Manchester and Mancunian have nothing to do with gender.

No one was confused about what chairman meant. No one thought mankind excluded women. No one believed manpower referred exclusively to men. These words functioned perfectly well for centuries until activists decided they were “harmful.” Orwell’s prediction of the rise of Newspeak is slowly coming true, in line with Big Brother watching you!

The Woke Method

This is the woke method in miniature:

1. Redefine a traditional word incorrectly
2. Declare the traditional word offensive
3. Shame anyone who refuses to comply with the change
4. Claim moral superiority

The offence is retroactive, the guilt is collective, and the punishment is mandatory participation in the charade. Replacing chairman with chair achieves nothing materially. Women are not paid more. Leadership pipelines do not improve. Discrimination does not vanish, but something else happens: compliance is demonstrated. That is the point, as woke language is not meant to solve problems. It is intended to signal allegiance. Using the approved terms shows you are “one of the good people.” To resist, even politely, is to mark yourself as suspect. This is why disagreement is not treated as a difference of opinion but as a moral defect.

The replacements themselves are often clumsy, vague, or absurd. Chair is an object you sit on. Ombudsperson is a bureaucratic eyesore. Human-made is redundant. Workforce loses the emphasis on capacity that manpower conveys. Precision is sacrificed on the altar of ideological hygiene. This is not refinement; it is flattening. Nuance, etymology, and elegance are discarded so that no one, anywhere, might feel discomfort - real or imagined. Even that is never enough. The list of forbidden words only grows. Today, it is the chairman; tomorrow, it is a freshman. Eventually, it is anything that fails to reflect the latest activist memo.

Supporters insist these changes are “voluntary,” yet they are enforced through HR departments, style guides, mandatory training, and social penalties. Say the wrong word, and you are corrected, reported, or quietly sidelined. The threat is rarely explicit, but it is always understood. This is how ideological conformity works in polite societies: not through laws, but through fear of social and professional consequences. Call it progress if you like, but do not pretend it is freedom. This entire crusade exists because it is easier to rename things than to fix things. It is far simpler to bully people over words than to confront brutal realities about competence, culture, or trade-offs. Wokism thrives in institutions that prefer symbolic victories to measurable results. Ordinary people do not speak this way, and they never have, as they understand these words perfectly well. The outrage is artificial, curated, and sustained by people whose jobs depend on finding new ways to be offended.

Conclusion

The war on man is not about respecting women; it is about erasing history, flattening language, and enforcing ideological obedience. It teaches people to distrust their own words, their own culture, and their own common sense. English does not need to be purified or corrected, and it certainly does not need to be bullied into submission by activists with dictionaries in one hand and accusations in the other. Words like chairman are not the problem; the problem is a movement that believes control over language entitles it to control our thoughts. Orwell’s Newspeak is slowly becoming a reality!