Pushing Back Against the Ipsoverbophobia of the Left

“How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.”

Samule Adams

We are all accustomed to the way Liberals manipulate language so that they can dictate the terms of debate. It’s not abortion; it’s choice or reproductive freedom. It’s not the destruction of marriage; it’s marriage equality. Homophobia. Transphobia. All phrases designed to talk about something other than what is at issue and to brand anyone who disagrees with them a moral reprobate. The Left’s refusal to use words with clear meanings, so a debate can be had on actual merits of their positions, was never so fully and ludicrously on display as on July 12, when Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri attempted to extract a straight answer from Berkeley Law Professor Khiara Bridges. Seeking to demystify the professor’s convoluted language, the Senator said, “You’ve referred to ‘people with a capacity for pregnancy’ — would that be women?”

The professor then gave a recitation of all the people who, in her mind, are not women, who nevertheless have the capacity for pregnancy. It is worth noting that all the non-women the professor cited are, in fact, women. But before the Senator from the Show Me State could demand empirical evidence of the male pregnancy phenomena now sweeping the blogosphere, but yet to appear in reality, the professor from the erstwhile bastion of free speech attempted to shut him up with the accusation that his line of questioning was “transphobic.” His insistence on calling women “women” would incite violence against transpeople, though the only type of violence she mentioned was self-harm. Apparently, the Senator’s denial that transpeople exists would prompt them to commit suicide, thereby proving his alleged point, in rather macabre fashion. My sainted mother would have called that, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face.” (It’s also worth noting that as I’m typing, Microsoft Word, whose Editor function routinely lectures me about using more inclusive language, is putting a red line under transpeople. So maybe the professor needs to sit down with Satya Nadella.)

Fast-forward a few days and the Internet is bursting with commentary about how the Professor of Doublespeak schooled the Neanderthal Republican for his crude and cruel attempt to cancel transpeople. (Oops, another red line.) It seems that all the best people are using the phrase “people with the capacity for pregnancy” this summer, and only the riffraff are insisting on biology. If only there was a turn of phrase the good Senator could have used to counter the charge of transphobia. Not to refute, but simply to deflect, as the Left does. A dodge and a turning of the tables. After wracking my brain, I think I’ve found (coined) the perfect word: ipsoverbophobia. I like that it has a –phobia at the end, because that automatically proves the targeted person is irrational.

So, let’s replay the hearing, picking up where the professor said, “I would like to note that your questions are transphobic..”

But this time, Senator Hawley cuts her off with, “And I’d like to note that your responses are ipsoverbophobic. You clearly have an irrational fear of the plain meaning of words. You should be aware that failing to honor the plain meaning of words does violence to language. Your responses are thus violent and encourage violence. You are stripping words of their meaning, thereby impoverishing language. By eradicating all meaning and sense, you commit verbocide and encourage linguacide. In your ispsoverbophobia, you seek to impose new meanings on commonly used words and phrases, which can only be described as conquest and colonization of language. You are imposing slavery, as you make words carry the meaning you want, rather than their indigenous meanings. Eventually, words that have enjoyed long and fruitful lives, prospering in discourse for centuries, might suddenly disappear from the dictionary altogether, replaced by nonsense terms, which mean only what an individual speaker intends, not what an audience of listeners can comprehend. Ultimately, when language is totally void of meaning, the only form of communication will be blunt force. Thus, your ipsoverbophobia is not only neurotic and ignorant, but dangerous, because when you do violence to language, you do violence to humanity. When language has no meaning, when verbal communication is futile, the only way to make a point is with a smack upside the head. Thus, every marital spat becomes an opportunity for domestic violence. That you could encourage a such a transition from spoken communication to brute force in the nuclear age is unconscionable, and shows your intent to hasten the destruction of the human race.”

The beauty of ispoverbophobia is that it has unlimited uses. Every time The Left comes up with a new convoluted phrase, and disseminates it through their talking points network to get the whole choir singing in unison, all we have to do is respond with “You’re being ispoverbophobic!”

We can even start 501(c)3s to stamp out ipsoverbophobia wherever we find it. Restore the language and we restore the debate. Restore the debate, and the side with the best ideas wins.

Kevin Rush is the author of the screwball romantic comedy, The Wedding Routine, which Online Book Club calls  an “amazing book” with “dynamic characters” who “produce nothing but comic gold.”

Some of the links in this column may be affiliate links. When you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, the website earns a small commission at no extra charge to you. These commissions help to support the website, so we thank you.