27 Words the Government Doesn't Want You To Use

The Insidious Threat of Government Censorship to Our Democracy

Hey everyone, it has been a while - things have been quite busy and exhausting for me, which has not been conducive to my writing. So this is not as polished or as in-depth and well cited as I normally write, this is a more of an opinion piece, a reaction to the miasma of happenings in the state of affairs right now, currently distilled into a singular focus on a single issue for this article.

How to prioritize and choose among so many critical issues that resonate with me so deeply? It has been a non-stop roller coaster of a lot of bad. I had to take a bit of time to absorb it all, process it, and take a step back - gain some perspective.

Where to begin?

Right now we have the freedom and rights to express ourselves, in words, actions, and speech. Through art and media.

We take this for granted.

Just like we took Roe v. Wade for granted.
Just like we are taking Gay marriage for granted.
Just like we are taking non-discrimination policies, laws, and acts for granted.

Indeed, all of these are already under assault and are crumbling under the current administration. An erosion of rights and freedoms that we are witnessing in real-time.

So what is the foundational thing that needs to be limited to prevent people from being able to actively defend and fight for these basic human rights?

Our words.

Though we saw a little bit of this before the elections with book bans, that is “nothing new” and “par for the course” for some elected officials to make noise and activate their religious base, to clutch performative pearls and attempt to make safeguarding their sensibilities a matter of national interest for the constituency. Usually to drive the conservative vote for re-election, when it quiets down and is forgotten.

But as we have seen since the election, that was just an appetizer, a taste of things to come. We were warned about Project 2025, and now we are beginning to see its effects. There is a lot of noise being made, and rightfully so. We should listen to that, and plan for it, and plan to take action to stand against it. Everyone can take part and be a force for good in some way.

What follows is about one of the foundational stones of a free and fair democratic society. One of the fundamental pillars that we must never let fall prey to the most pernicious and insidious acts of people in government who seek to solidify and entrench their power by robbing us of ours.

Our voices and the fitting of the muzzle.

Two very alarming words that should send shivers down our spine and impart a small nugget of fear in our brains:

Government Censorship.

---

Ladies and gentlemen and esteemed non-binary guests, I've got a little story for you about a place called the United States of America, where the government seems to think they have the right to control not just what you say, but what you think. A little sneak preview of the burgeoning state of things to come.

Now, since the last failed election of Donald Trump, some genius came up with a brilliant idea called "Project 2025." We were warned of this, and in spite of his lies and denials, this is what he ran on. For many, this is what he was elected for. For those who have power and/or wealth, this is why they bent the knee and kissed the ring. It preserves their power and wealth with promises to enrich it further.

This little gem of a plan included a list of 27 words that the government deemed too dangerous for public consumption. Words like "diversity," "inclusion," "gender identity," and "racism." You know, the kind of words that might make some folks uncomfortable because they force them to confront the reality that not everyone in this country looks, thinks, lives, or loves the same way they do.

But here's the thing: when the government starts dictating what words we can and can't use, they're not just limiting our freedom of speech. They're limiting our freedom of thought. They're telling us that certain ideas and concepts are off-limits, that they're too dangerous or too controversial to even discuss. And that, my friends, is the first steps towards a totalitarian state.

You see, the beauty of a democratic society is that everyone has the right to express their opinions and beliefs, no matter how unpopular or controversial they may be¹. It's the marketplace of ideas, where the best ones are supposed to rise to the top through open and honest debate. But when the government starts putting up barriers around certain words and ideas, they're essentially rigging the game in their favor.

And let's not forget about the impact this kind of censorship can have on marginalized communities. By targeting words like "equity," "inclusion," and "gender identity," the government is essentially telling women, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ folks, and anyone else who doesn't fit into the dominant power structure that their experiences and identities are invalid, that they don't deserve to be seen or heard or respected. That they don’t matter.

But it's not just these communities that are affected. When we look at the full list of banned words:

1. Anti-Racism

2. Racism

3. Allyship

4. Bias

5. DEI

6. Diversity

7. Diverse

8. Confirmation Bias

9. Equity

10. Equitableness

11. Feminism

12. Gender

13. Gender Identity

14. Inclusion

15. Inclusive

16. All-Inclusive

17. Inclusivity

18. Injustice

19. Intersectionality

20. Prejudice

21. Privilege

22. Racial Identity

23. Sexuality

24. Stereotypes

25. Pronouns

26. Transgender

27. Equality

It becomes clear that this is an attack on the very language we need to build a more just and equitable society.

These words aren't just buzzwords or political jargon. They're the building blocks of a world where everyone has a seat at the table, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other aspect of their identity. They're the tools we need to recognize and celebrate the unique perspectives and experiences that each person brings to the table.

And when we talk about "anti-racism" and "equity," we're not just paying lip service to some politically correct ideal. We're acknowledging the fact that systemic racism and inequality are still very real problems in this country, and that we have a responsibility to actively work towards dismantling them.

But by banning these words, the government is essentially saying that these issues don't matter, or worse, that they don't even exist. They're trying to erase the very language we need to have honest and productive conversations about the challenges we face as a society.

And let's not forget about the words related to gender and sexuality. By banning terms like "gender identity," "pronouns," and "transgender," the government is sending a clear message that these identities are somehow invalid or unworthy of recognition. They're telling LGBTQIA+ folks that their experiences and struggles don't matter, and that they should just stay silent and invisible. That we should go back to our closets, and stay out of public spaces.

When we start banning words, we're not just limiting free speech. We're limiting free thought. We're telling people that certain ideas and concepts are off-limits, that they're too dangerous or too controversial to even discuss. And that, my friends, is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

And it's not just about social justice. This kind of censorship has far-reaching implications for personal freedoms and liberties across the board. If the government can tell us what words we can and can't use, what's to stop them from telling us what books we can read, what movies we can watch, or what beliefs we can hold? It's a slippery slope towards thought control, and that's not a place any of us should want to go. And we see the signs, we have the evidence, that it is already sliding down that slope. ²

Moreover, this censorship can have severe consequences for research and healthcare. How are we supposed to study and address issues like racial disparities in healthcare outcomes or the unique health needs of transgender individuals if we can't even use the words to describe these populations? How are we supposed to create more inclusive and equitable policies and practices if we're not allowed to acknowledge that inequity exists in the first place?

But it gets even worse. By targeting words like "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion," we're not just censoring language. We're censoring people. We're telling women, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ folks, and anyone else who doesn't fit into the dominant power structure that their experiences and identities are invalid, that they don't deserve to be seen or heard or respected.

This isn't just about political correctness or being "woke." This is about our fundamental right to speak truth to power, to challenge the status quo, and to fight for a more just and equitable society. And if we let ourselves be silenced by a bunch of corporate suits and right-wing fear-mongers, then we've already lost.

Now, I know some of you might be thinking, "But PITT, isn't this all just political correctness run amok? Aren't you just being oversensitive? Pessimistic?" And to that, I say: no, my friend, I am being pragmatic and I am being patriotic. Because the true measure of a democracy is not how well it treats its most popular and powerful citizens, but how well it protects the rights and freedoms of its most vulnerable and marginalized ones.

And that's why we need to fight back against this kind of censorship, no matter which party or administration is pushing it. We need to stand up for our right to speak truth to power, to challenge the status quo, and to fight for a more just and equitable society. We need to use our voices to defend the very principles that make this country great: freedom, equality, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

So, to the government officials who came up with this brilliant idea of banning words: I've got a message for you. You can try to silence us, but you can't stop us from thinking. You can try to control our language, but you can't control our minds. And as long as there are people in this country who believe in the power of words and the importance of free speech, you will never win.

So, here's my advice: keep using those 27 words. Use them loudly and proudly. Use them to describe the world as it is, not as some people wish it were. Use them to demand change, to call out injustice, and to build a better future for all of us. Because in the end, it's not just about the words themselves. It's about the ideas and the people behind them. And that's something worth fighting for.

You have a paper to publish, but the NIH can’t allow it to be published under the NIH portal? Release it to the public anyway, via alternative channels. Get it published in a different medical journal.³

Because you can ban the words, but you can’t ban the truth.

Fuck censorship, fuck oppression, and fuck anyone who tries to tell you what you can and can't say. The only way to protect our democracy is to use our voices, even when - especially when - it makes the powers that be uncomfortable.

Because in the end, it's not about left or right, red or blue, or what color shirt you wear. It's about standing up for what's right, even when it's hard. It's about protecting the very foundations of our democracy, one word at a time. And that, my friends, is the inconvenient truth.

1. For obvious reasons, freedom of speech should not mean freedom from consequences. Yelling “fire” in a theater or “bomb” in an airport where no such emergency exists, for example. You are free to do so, and you are free to suffer the consequences of inciting a mass panic where no emergency situation existed.

There are consequences to the speech used. In these cases, it was not the words themselves nor the fact that they were spoken, but how they were used that matters. These are extraordinarily rare exceptions. And even though these exceptions exist, we do not ban the words “fire” or “bomb” - we made the act of inciting panic where none should exist illegal. This is a fair but important distinction to make.

The position of the government highlighted in my article does not fall into this category of exclusions, and banning these words is unjustified censorship that does not protect public safety. Even in cases where speech may have negative consequences, the solution is not to ban the words and speech outright, but engage in more speech and debate to counter it.

2. These articles just to give an idea:

• https://popular.info/p/the-nsas-big-delete

• https://www.kpbs.org/news/economy/2025/02/07/federal-list-of-forbidden-words-may-jeopardize-research-at-ucsd

• https://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/02/04/trumps-banned-words-and-disastrous-health-policies/

• https://gizmodo.com/the-list-of-trumps-forbidden-words-that-will-get-your-paper-flagged-at-nsf-2000559661

• https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2025/02/the-27-words-the-nsa-is-scrubbing-from-its-websites-report/

• Yes, they even scrubbed trans kids from the missing persons list: https://www.advocate.com/politics/missing-exploited-lgbtq-kids-removed?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

3. Anyone can get a paper or study published in a scientific journal, so long as it stands to the rigors of science and passes the scrutiny of peer review.