"Here’s an example. There’s a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse. In World War I it was called 'shell shock.' Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. It almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was more than eighty years ago.

"Then a generation passed, and in World War II the same combat condition was called 'battle fatigue.' Four syllables now; takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. 'Fatigue' is a nicer word than 'shock.' Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

"By the early 1950s, the Korean War had come along, and the very same condition was being called 'operational exhaustion.' The phrase was up to eight syllables now, and any last traces of humanity had been completely squeezed out of it. It was absolutely sterile: operational exhaustion. Like something that might happen to your car.

"Then, barely fifteen years later, we got into Vietnam, and, thanks to the deceptions surrounding that war, it’s no surprise that the very same condition was referred to as 'post-traumatic stress disorder.' Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon: post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed."

He called it softening of language. You can read more here: https://www.thoughtco.com/soft-language-euphemism-1692111

To insulate their communication from this evocative power of language, activists steered institutions toward a new word ("homeless") and the general public eventually followed suit. But word choice does not change the underlying phenomenon, and so "homeless" was fated to acquire the same nasty connotation as its predecessor, and is now getting replaced again.

Note that the literal nature of "homeless/houseless" actually broadens the category, which is kind of cruel to people who are more functional and only temporarily homeless.

[1] And before that, "bums", "indigents" etc.

Occasionally there’s good reason for it but usually it’s a strong signal that the people talking about it have a weak sense of solving the problem and a strong one of projecting the image of solving it.

There is also a push to refer to people without a place to live as "unhoused" for some of the same reasons. You can have spaces, places, communities that feel like "home" and still not have a safe, consistent, reliable place to eat, sleep and keep up your hygiene.

IMHO there is also the issue of who is accountable. Home is personal so homelessness might be seen as a personal challenge. Whereas house describes a structure and asset so houselessness might denote both the individual plight and the greater socioeconomic and political forces at work.

At the end of the day, I suppose those most affected or most dedicated to addressing the issue should use whatever term fits.

Cynically: By focusing on housing, people can build some housing, scoot the mentally ill and addicted under a little roof, and call it a day.

Pragmatically: The novelty causes you to think about homelessness longer than you normally would.

Anecdotally: A guy in LA built some “tiny homes” for the homeless but he built them on a lot that wasn’t zoned for a bunch of individual dwellings. The city soon evicted them but for a while the homeless residents were not houseless.

I'm sorry, these are valid points of view - if you disagree, fine, but have a dialog or something. There's a lot more than just "zoning rules don't allow us to make enough new houses" and if you're going to say anything at all, you need to address that - not just strut around virtue signaling.

Defining someone by saying they live without a home is pejorative.