A new “ Inclusive Language Guide ” from the American Psychological Association reiterates prior demands that terms including “the poor” and “special needs” are offensive and should be replaced.

But neither term is offensive, and they are, in fact, good descriptions for people who need additional assistance. It is not offensive to acknowledge someone needs more help than another person.

The APA says to use “people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold” instead of “the poor” or “poor people.”

Poor is a good descriptor that can be universally understood by those who hear it.

Poll the average person, and I doubt they can tell you what the poverty threshold is. Ask anyone what a “poor” person needs, and we can probably all agree that food, stable housing, and other supportive services would top the list.

The alternative also conflates income with wealth and current social status. But there are poor people who make good money but struggle with alcoholism or drug addiction. They need assistance, even though they make more than the federal poverty line.

Likewise, for the term “special needs.” This is an accurate description of someone who is physically or mentally disabled. They have “special needs.” They have the same amount of dignity and human worth as anyone, but they need extra help. The term is preferable to and has replaced terms such as “Mongoloid” and “retarded.” Notably, “differently abled” is also verboten, even though that was supposed to be a politically correct term.

Like the word “poor,” the term “special needs” immediately gives a general idea to the person hearing it that more help is needed. Every person is different in what they need, but it is a good shorthand to “be patient and go out of your way to make them feel welcomed.”

Other suggestions are similarly nonsensical but perhaps a bit more humorous. We are told not to say “able-bodied” but instead “nondisabled.” But that implies that “disabled” people are not “able-bodied,” which then makes their disability purely a physical one and not a mental one.

Another term that has quickly fallen out of favor is BIPOC, which stands for black, indigenous, and people of color.

“The term ‘BIPOC’ is still considered by many to indicate a hierarchy among communities of color,” the guide states. “Scholars argue that the limitation of BIPOC is that it homogenizes communities of color together and a need exists to account for people’s unique racial, cultural, and intersectional identities.”

“Experts suggest that when ‘BIPOC’ is used, people fail to recognize how different groups are racialized and further engage in othering, particularly for racial groups that are not part of Black and Indigenous communities,” the guide states.

Another way indigenous communities feel offended, we’re told, is by the term “pipeline.”

The term “is considered offensive to Indigenous communities as a result of oil companies transporting crude oil through the sacred lands of Native Americans or Alaska Natives and contaminating their water supply.” Instead, people should use the word “pathways.”

Some phrases in the list are reasonable to stop using, though I’d question how wide their use is now; “invalid,” “gimp,” and “cripple” went out of fashion decades ago. And I agree that “failed” suicide is misleading because it is a good thing when someone is unable to kill themselves.

However, as our language and culture change, we must be careful not to get rid of respectful, simple words such as “poor” and “special needs” that accurately describe someone’s condition. Those who most need our help are not aided by changing the language.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner. He is an associate editor for The College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.