It is becoming more and more evident that where liberalism goes, words become meaningless. 
I can’t say that I am necessarily surprised by this fact because I have been a witness to it, and this post is something of a letter of grief to that fact. 
I would argue that it is because of relativistic morality that we are in this position (See one of my arguments here). Although there is no such thing as a true relativist because, rather innately, people realize that it is an unlivable position. People claim to want “bodily autonomy” and yet they want to impose on the autonomy of others, something we can see in abortion, the fight against rights of association and conscience, and the creep of socialism. The loudest shouts about it and for it are the ones leading the charge against it in the name of so-called “reproductive rights”, better known as abortion. At its end is a hidden face of authoritarianism, the very fascist totalitarianism that they accuse others of trying to employ. 
The latest evidence of this is seen in the issue of a “transgendered boy” being allowed to join the Boy Scouts. Hence, the term “boy” no longer has meaning, since it is being applied to that which is biologically female. 
From USA Today,

From the moment he joined, 8-year-old Joe Maldonado eagerly looked forward to camping trips and science projects as a member of the Cub Scouts.

Sounds innocent enough, but the second sentence is the kicker,

But his expectations were dashed after his mother said she received a phone call from a Scouting official who told her that Joe would no longer be allowed to participate because he was born a girl. (Emphasis added)

“Joe” is actually a female who “[…]had been living as a boy for more than a year[…]”. Okay, time does not make you something that you are biologically not, and never will be, that is determined by your genetics and not by your beliefs. But what bothers me is the fact that only the mother is mentioned, nothing about the child’s father. 
 But let’s think about another issue here. What about the so-called, “war on women” that is so often touted in the media? Isn’t this truly a war against a woman. This little girl (her biology will never change) has declared war on herself, and is rejecting her femaleness. We could even push this argument over if it was a boy who “identified” as a girl (something he will never biologically be) in that he is encroaching on what he can never be in any meaningful sense of the word. I would argue that the mother is most likely a Democrat, and probably believes that there is such a thing as the “war on women” but is willfully ignorant of the fact that it is she that is, in fact, waging the war against herself and the future of her daughter by allowing an indulgence in fantasy. 
As I have written before, I am a proud, straight male who loves–better word–has a strong appreciation for that which is female, so much so that I married one. She is a proud, strong woman that has embraced her femininity and I would argue is somewhat of a feminist. 
“Joe” loves “camping and science projects”, isn’t there some way that those things, which are entirely good and proper to enjoy, can be indulged without waging war against her (that’s what she is, and always will be) femaleness or does she have to abandon her essential, God-given identity to do those things? According to her mother, as well as the Boy Scouts by their capitulation, and those on the left, she does and she should. 

See Steven Crowder crash the Women’s March