Language is one of humanity’s most powerful tools, able to influence the minds of its speakers to a certain degree. If Orwell’s 1984 abolished several words promoting freedom and individuality to depict a homogenous dictatorship, our generation would have largely taken a drastic stance in favor of individual traits and diversity to reach the opposite. Expressions such as misgendering or cultural appropriation may result obscure to adult readers, but their increasing popularity among youngsters is a visible sign of a heightened sensitivity to personal characteristics, and eventually to social minorities. What is wrong with careful speech, if it helps promote inclusion? Well, the problem is, extremists are once again defeating the purpose.

Politically correct (PC) speech, as any other tool ever, should be used with moderation to stay productive. However, an extremely “woke” side of the internet has started to encourage an unwavering and unforgiving attitude toward people’s conduct, going as far as inventing a “cancel” culture that obliterates discording internet users for good. Web niches embracing this mentality primarily target the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) or non-white audience, and have produced influencers with millions of followers.

The imperative of employing PC language resides in its core purpose, which can be aptly described as fostering respect and sensitivity in relation to the impact of linguistic expressions on thought processes. Several prominent instances of political correctness emerge within discourse, including but not limited to, critiques surrounding cultural appropriation, considerations of people of color, and the representation of disabled individuals. These instances, however, invite a nuanced examination of the potential drawbacks of an excessive preoccupation with speech.

An illustrative work, Ability Speaks: Talking with a Person with Disability (2009), delves into the intricacies of PC language when it comes to discussing disabilities. This analysis posits that while the use of PC phrases may indicate an elevated sensitivity to linguistic choices, they might not necessarily catalyze transformative shifts in deeply ingrained attitudes. Thus, it becomes apparent that even if racists adopt the terminology of “those people of color” instead of overtly derogatory terms, the underlying discriminatory undertones persist if the manner of expression remains belittling and disparaging.

Another topic that engenders a plurality of viewpoints concerning PC is the trending use of neo-pronouns. While some view neo-pronouns as a means to amplify inclusivity and affirm individual identities, others question whether the prominence placed on these linguistic nuances might divert attention from other pressing concerns related to gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.

However, while it is imperative to recognize the potential pitfalls of heightened individualism resulting from excessive PC, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the value that judicious linguistic refinement can bring, particularly in the context of promoting gender equality. For instance, ignoring feminine declensions in gendered languages can inadvertently contribute to the reinforcement of traditional gender norms and stereotypes. Consider the case of the Italian Prime Minister’s refusal to adopt the title of la presidente (female president), instead opting for the traditional masculine form. This instance highlights the counterproductive effect of a traditionalistic language, missing the opportunity to become a vehicle for eroding sexist stereotypes. In the final analysis, it is crucial that we do not entirely consign PC to oblivion. Instead, it may be helpful to readjust its prominence to a more balanced scale within our collective consciousness.