Dictionary.com has declared its word of the year is “woman,” explaining: “We are all faced with questions about who gets to identify as a woman (or a man, or neither). The policies that these questions inform transcend the importance of any dictionary definition — they directly impact people’s lives.”

This is a testament to the conversation started by conservative political pundit Matt Walsh, whose seminal documentary “What Is a Woman?” challenges the thoughts and practices of the gender ideologues.

The word “woman” hit a high number of searches after Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Jackson obfuscated, saying she couldn’t answer the question because “I’m not a biologist.”

Cambridge Dictionary also altered its definitions of “man” and “woman,” and the changes — which had been made under the radar in October — became the subject of ire this week. The primary definitions for these words remain the same; however, the secondary definitions now read:

• “an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”

• “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”

Merriam-Webster also updated its definitions over the summer. It now prefaces “man” and “woman” with the phrase, “typically has the capacity to.” Both Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionary — by attempting to be politically correct — have created meaningless circular definitions of the words “man” and “woman.” It is, in fact, erasure.

This systematic definition change to “inclusive” language matters a great deal. It highlights the great debate going on in the culture.

Conservative analyst David Harsanyi gets to the heart of the issue. He writes: “How does one use ‘woman’ in a sentence? One of Cambridge’s examples is, ‘Mary is a woman who was assigned male at birth.’ Who assigned Mary’s sex? Her parents? God? Evolution? The SRY gene? And what other human characteristics does Cambridge believe can be altered according to one’s feelings?”

Feelings are arbitrary. The original definition of “man” and “woman” is based in science, and that science hasn’t changed. The insistence on individual reality (i.e., being your own god) is the only reason for the “update.”

The debate on the definition of these words centers on the first premise question: What is the central defining unit in a culture? Is it an individual, or is it the family? The woke have declared that it is the individual who gets to dictate and define the culture according to how that individual feels today. That culture must always reflect back the reality that the individual has defined for him or herself. Those who disagree (and that is a bipartisan cohort) and believe that the family is the defining unit in the culture are broken free from the tyranny of the god of individualism. That freedom allows for words to be rooted in reality.

The tyrant of Self that is such a core tenet of the woke ideology is an ever-more demanding ruler. Being courteous and indulging in delusions for the sake of getting along no longer satisfies these harpies. They now demand that we either conform to their worldview or be ostracized.

Wokeism has hostilely taken over the cultural language to an Orwellian extent. Take, for example, recent bills that have passed Congress. The “Inflation Reduction Act” and the “Respect for Marriage Act” actually achieve the opposite. Then there are other words like “bigot,” “racist,” “conversion therapy,” and “gender-affirming care.” They either mean the opposite of what they say or, in the case of “bigot” and “racist,” they have no meaning at all.

Ultimately, when you take away the meaning of words and replace them with circular definitions, these bastions of linguistic “sovereignty” are ultimately saying those words have no meaning. By extension, they are also probably saying that people intrinsically have no meaning.

If there is no meaning, then what is the point? It’s a bad, dangerous, and destructive idea that is winnowing out the culture.