Community-engaged researchers and social service practitioners increasingly adopt nonstigmatizing language to foster respectful and inclusive relationships with communities. However, little attention has been paid to whether decisions about preferred terminology reflect principles of community engagement, particularly the meaningful involvement of people with lived experience (PWLE) in determining how they are represented. Using homelessness as an illustrative example, this conceptual article argues that debates over nonstigmatizing language are also questions of community engagement because they reflect whose knowledge is valued and who has authority to define social realities. Although shifting language can reduce stigma, changing terminology does not necessarily improve the lives of PWLE when it occurs without meaningful engagement with affected communities. We examine nonstigmatizing language through three concepts: the euphemism treadmill, virtue signaling, and the disconnect between shifting language and PWLE preferences. We propose best practices that position language as a relational practice grounded in reciprocity and knowledge coproduction