If you want to change a society, the most efficient way is not with guns and tanks but with a dictionary.

Progressives know the power of language and they prioritise it in their efforts to restructure society. Change the language and you change the way people think, change the way people think and you change the way people act, change the way people act and you have changed society; all without firing a shot. It takes longer than a violent revolution but it is much more effective and longer lasting.

The establishment pursues inclusive language. The British government has several style guides about how to speak on such subjects as disability or ethnicity. Every university has its own language guide.  Edinburgh University sees inclusive language as an important aspect in pursuit of its ‘vision of making the world a better place’. The latest advance of the language manipulators is the 92-page Inclusive Language Guide Oxfam have issued for their staff.

We can laugh at the contortions Oxfam force themselves into in order to avoid the possibility of offending any group they see as vulnerable. Former Tory minister Robert Buckland said: ‘Most people will find this particular use of valuable time and resources by Oxfam totally bizarre.’ Some proposed changes are beyond parody. The guide does not want employees to refer to ‘headquarters’ because it ‘implies a power dynamic that prioritises one office over another’ and ‘reinforces hierarchical power issues and a top-down approach’.

However, laughing then dismissing the guide as another example of out-of-touch wokery underestimates the purpose and effect of such language. This is not bizarre, this is revolutionary and we should take it seriously. Although the Oxfam International Secretariat has fewer than 300 staff,  Oxfam affiliates have around 10,000 employees and nearly 50,000 interns and volunteers in 67 countries, and 1,200 shops worldwide. Oxfam are seeking to change how people see the world.

They apologise for printing the guide in English because English is the language of a ‘colonising’ nation: ‘We recognise that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.’

Language, to be useful, has to be exclusive

Oxfam’s staff and volunteers have been advised to drop ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from their vocabulary and replace them with ‘parent’. Oxfam argue that allowances should be made for trans families who might not identify with the conventional roles of a man and woman in parenthood.

We might think that this is merely Oxfam bending over backwards to prevent a vanishingly small group of people from feeling uncomfortable, but there is more going on here. Oxfam claim the word ‘parent’ describes ‘the role in raising children without directly ascribing gendered roles’. They argue: ‘In patriarchal culture, social norms around gender result in designated roles for parents that reflect expectations of that gender.’ They object to men acting as fathers and women a mothers.

The underlying aim of these language changes is to eradicate the differences between men and women. Oxfam say: ‘We are proud of using inclusive language.’ But language, to be useful, has to be exclusive with definitions which help us negotiate our relationships. When we no longer speak of ‘father’ and ‘mother’ but the interchangeable ‘parent’ we no longer acknowledge any difference.

The words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ are meant to be exclusive, describing specific people with specific roles. Mothers are not ‘breast-feeding people’ or ‘people who become pregnant’, they are women. Take away the exclusive nature of language and we take away our ability to appreciate the differences between men and women, fathers and mothers.

Oxfam wish to avoid terms such as ‘biological male/female’ and ‘male/female bodied’. Their staff are instructed to speak of those ‘assigned female/male at birth (AFMB/AMAB)’. The reason is that no one, ‘whether cisgender or transgender, gets to choose what sex they’re assigned at birth’.

There is a grass-roots reaction to this push by the progressive elites to alter the way we speak and think. An ‘inclusive language guide’ published by the Local Government Association(LGA) was rapidly withdrawn after being pilloried by LGA workers and the public. The document included advice such as avoiding the use of the words ‘Caucasian’ and ‘homeless’. It suggested using the expression ‘welcome, everyone’ instead of ‘welcome, ladies and gentlemen’ and ‘birthing parent’ rather than ‘mum and dad’. I am no fan of daytime television but viewers of ITV’s Good Morning Britain spoke for all of us when they expressed bemusement at the Oxfam guide.

This drive to alter how we speak should be of concern to all, but particularly to Christians. In our biblical faith, words and their precise meanings matter. Christians understand that when we lose clarity and definition we lose understanding. Would we be improving the inclusivity of Scripture if we altered the nearly 300 times ‘mother’ is used in the Bible to ‘parent’?  Altering the Lord’s Prayer to speak to our ‘Parent’ in heaven alters its meaning in a significant way.

With imagery we lose impact when we make alterations to accord with the sensibilities of the perpetually offended. In Isaiah 1:18 we read, ‘Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.’ The Oxfam guide would have us stop using ‘white’ as a term for cleanliness and purity on the (spurious) grounds that it has racial overtones. How then do we capture the clear imagery of the change brought about by redemption?

Language is too important to be left a tool in the hands of progressive ideologues in their fruitless pursuit of woke utopia.



  1. I’m sure Oxfam will suffer for this utterly woke gesture. I wouldn’t give them a penny……

    1. I’m afraid that Oxfam will run into reality when they find out that many will find it more than strange that an organisation with a reputation for covering up internal sexual abuse should be so concerned about language use.

  2. Do these people seriously think the rest, (the vast majority), of the population has the time or interest to obey these constant instructions about the ‘correct’ words to use? They even change some of their own previous changes. They have FAR too much time on their hands if this is all they have to think about. Oxfam should look to the beam in its own eye before obsessing about the mote in the eyes of others.

  3. Most people have no idea how they are being manipulated with mutated language deconstruction. And it goes way beyond modern attempts you have given examples of. In the late 1800s religious people with an agenda subtly inserted the thin end of the wedge that has led to the Bible being changed – sometimes radically – with language changes. You said, “language, to be useful, has to be exclusive with definitions which help us negotiate our relationships.” Never was that more true than biblical language showing the relationships in Deity, and how believers are to relate to God. especially in the koine Greek language of the Bible, which is breathtakingly precise on this matter. But many modern people dismiss the Father/Son relationship, seeking to deconstruct it. Well, one day they will be faced with the just how damaging that is – to themselves.

  4. ” ‘We recognise that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.’”

    I can support that and wish that Cornish was the lingua franca of oxfam so that I wouldn’t be tempted to read it. I notice that their shop in my town has ‘Empowering Women’ as an aim. How does that fit with oxfam employees flying around the world and abusing them?

  5. That liar and deceiver, who opposes Christ Jesus and the Kingdom of God, has an agenda to destroy Christianity. One way is to attack biblical morality and persuade people they can be whatever they want to be, to do whatever they want to do, and to have governments back them up. Already Christian morality is being singled out by the media in Scotland, schools are going along with the “politically correct” language dictated to them by Government. Make no mistake, next on Satan’s agenda will be to have the public turn against Christians and deny them the right to freedom of worship. Government is already denying us freedom of speech, and they are using language to defend their actions.

    Remember when God came down to see what Nimrod was up to in Babylon, building the Tower of Babel in order to become a global empire? Well, it looks to me like the nations are even now being gathered to take sides (although they don’t realise they are being manipulated by Satan and his demons) in an effort to silence Christians, merge Christianity with Islam (it’s called Chrislam and already exists) and create a one world religion. It can’t be long before God has to come down again to break up the satanic plan to wipe out His people. Let’s not be found sleeping.

    1. The situation for Christians is going to become more difficult as progressives gain an ever tighter grip on public perceptions, which is why next week I plan to begin a four part series on Christian Resistance.

      1. A pastor in the States, in Ohio, has been running a two-hour radio show for 50 years, Monday through Friday, called “What’s Right, What’s Left: The Christian Resistance.” (The shows are available as podcasts for online listening after they have aired – each hour of any given night is a separate, 1-hour podcast.) Pastor Ernie Sanders and his team are all volunteers – none has taken one penny for payments from the donations that people make to keep the show on the air. The pastor’s church also is NOT a federally registered non-profit organization, so it is not beholden to the government in any regard. It stayed open, and mask-less, throughout the lockdowns. These folks quite literally put their money where their mouths are. Talk about integrity! These people have deep faith!

    2. Already the Biden administration is using the Supreme Court to permit employers to deny their employees their right to go to church on Sundays. The tip of the iceberg …

  6. I see this Oxfam radical pressure as a patronising imposition and an attack on my role as a father. They want to remove my God-given authority over my wife and children. I think this criminal and the worse kind of social engineering as it dismantles the sovereignty of the home as a bulwark against tyranny.


  7. “Headquarters” is banned, because it implies that one office is more important than the others? They want to move away from a “top-down” way of doing things? So why does Oxfam headquarters issue a top-down directive about “acceptable language”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s