Re: Dykes on Bikes lose again

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 7/14/05 5:23:48 PM, jsmithjamessmith at YAHOO.COM writes:


> But there's nothing innately offensive about the word
> "queer", a common word used daily in multiple
> contexts.  I can tell my wife she's queer with no
> repercussions (other than an arched eyebrow), but I
> should expect to be mollifying her with flowers and
> jewelry were I to call her a dyke.
> 

I suspect if you called your wife A "queer" she would be just as offended as 
if you called her A "dyke." But for that matter, if you called her a 
"homosexual" (or, for that matter, "a servant") she would probably be offended. The 
offense, in other words, surely has nothing to do with anything "innate" about 
the connotations of the words, but rather about the core meaning of the words 
and how they apply to the context of utterance. The fact that "queer" has 
adjectival meanings other than 'homosexual' is not really relevant in the context 
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," because it is quite clear that, in this 
context, "queer" means 'homosexual male'.

I would not argue that the Trademark Office was wrong to allow a TM 
containing the word "queer" meaning 'homosexual', only that they were inconsistent in 
allowing that and disallowing "dyke" meaning 'lesbian'.