In 2018, Parliament approved a relatively minor change to Canada’s national anthem. “In all thy sons command” became “in all of us command.” As edits go, it was small; but the move towards gender-neutrality was significant. Not long after, I went to a Blue Jays game in Toronto. The crowd rose to sing O Canada, and a man near me actually booed the new line, jeering our national anthem because of two words.

I was reminded of that incident when Merriam-Webster selected the humble pronoun ‘they’ as its word of the year for 2019. The choice reflects growing social recognition of gender diversity. Some people feel that neither ‘he’ nor ‘she’ accurately expresses their identity. Sadly, but predictably, controversy ensued when critics called it an attempt “to control people’s behavior and speech.”

We should be wary of how we change language. If I remember anything from Grade 9 English class, it’s the classic dystopian fiction 1984. George Orwell’s invented ‘Newspeak’—which changes the definition of ‘free’ to mean ‘an absence’—shows us that omitting and redefining words can be a tool of oppression to prevent people from thinking critically. But there’s a flip side. Updating our vocabulary can also free us to consider new ideas and make space for people on the margins of language.

‘They’ is a good example. We should all have the right to self-define, and it’s not just symbolic, it’s science. Research on human biology has overturned the idea that gender identity is binary and unchangeable. Elevating non-gendered pronouns opens us up to new ways of thinking about ourselves, our species, and our society. Words become bricks for building safe and welcoming social spaces for the gender-diverse.

Evolving our vocabulary can also tear down the walls that exclude marginalized groups by making us aware of the offensive words we take for granted.

Recently, I was writing about the 10th anniversary of the earthquake in Haiti. I struggled to describe the devastating impact on infrastructure and was more than a little discomfited to realize that the first word to pop into my head was ‘crippled.’

Words like lame, schizophrenic and blind have long done double duty as negative slurs. This is ableist language that makes some people feel inferior. Replacing that cruel lexicon with any of the available synonyms isn’t ‘political correctness,’ it’s tearing down a barrier that prevents people from feeling safe and welcome.

Purists will kick and scream about any revision of vocabulary. I would point them towards history, where human languages have constantly changed and evolved. Nobody says ‘thee’ or ‘thou’ anymore, unless they’re in a Shakespearean play. Those terms became obsolete after changes in our social dynamics. When was the last time you called your boss ‘My Lady’ or ‘My Lord’?

No one is harmed by saying “they” instead of “he,” or “that’s ridiculous” in place of “that’s lame.” If a small alteration costs you nothing, but means a great deal to someone else, there is no reason in the world not to change.

The evolution of language is the evolution of humanity. As our words become more inclusive, so do we.