The term "anti-aging" has become so commonplace that it barely causes an eyebrow raise. Ads beckoning boomers and beyond to buy every imaginable anti-aging lotion and potion are ubiquitous. Even anti-aging medicine has its own national academy.

Yet, what is this term saying? Is aging something to be against? Anti? Really?

What if you were asked to be anti-Black or Asian? How about anti-teens? Or anti-toddlers? Laughable, right? Yet, the "anti-aging" gospel is unabashedly preached across medicine, media and commercial enterprises galore. Let's put a stop to it.

Since when did aging become a bad thing? Since money was to be made by fighting any indication that we won't be "young" forever. And that prompts yet another question: Since when did young become the gold standard for living well or being OK?

I ask these questions because I'm genuinely puzzled — and incensed — about the rampant degradation of aging as an enemy that must be fought, stopped, defeated. I, for one, am quite happy to be aging. Aging, after all, is not a disease to be eradicated nor even a collection of downhill damages to be rectified. Aging is what we all hope for — to live a long time. Yes, unless we're suicidal, we want to age.

Of course, the anti-aging gospel preachers will tout all the improvements that come with their various potions. By all means, let them help us improve our health, improve our state of mind, or whatever their ultimate goals are. But what needs improving is not advancing age, it's the various health conditions that may show up as we get older. We do indeed need healthier lifestyles, healthier living conditions, and sometimes potions and procedures that help counter health decline.

But watch your language, please. Could we, instead of calling it anti-aging, advocate for "pro-aging"? Pro-aging could come to mean that we are "for" something quite magnificent, supporting a long, healthy life. If there are products to sell (aren't there always?), can they promote aging as something we aspire to instead of fight? I, for one, would consider taking a pro-aging pill.

Am I being a fussbudget over using correct language? I don't think so. Here's why. If I constantly hear the gospel of anti-aging everywhere I turn, it can't help but affect how I think about myself — and how other people think of me. As an old person, I am cast as the enemy to be overcome or at least as something to be repaired and "made young again." I am being asked to question whether I'm looking or acting too old — and made wrong for doing so.

The old people I hang around don't want to be seen as an enemy to be overcome, nor do they want to be remade into a younger form. Rather, they are taking part in improvisational dance groups and tutoring children and going back to school. They are forming Elders Climate Action chapters to contribute to healthy climate change. They are taking part in community discussions offered by the Vital Aging Network about what contributes to positive aging and what values they will choose to live by in their remaining years. They are pro-aging writ large.

Every time I see the anti-aging reference, I call it out. I let the maker or touter of whatever is being sold know that I'm not against aging and I ask them to stop being against it, too. What I ask is pretty simple: Let what we say be clear, honest and helpful. Let's start by erasing "anti-aging" from our vocabulary. Will you join me?

Pat Samples lives in Brooklyn Center. She's at patsamples@patsamples.com.