Back in 2003 I wrote about how us gays had ameliorated the word 'queer'. Basically, by adopting the term for our own use we lessen the impact of a previous weapon of verbal assault. The same rationale has been used by women who affectionately point the 'B' word at each other and African-Americans who sling the 'N' word around as if it was never a precursor to a lynching. And then there is today's queer replacement, the 'F' word—which no longer represents the expletive solo salute, but the oh-so-crass "fag".

In a sense you could claim that the amelioration of the word queer, to opponents' dismay, hadn't been a failed experiment at all. At the time of my queer-is-ok spot, the word had been watered down into a sip of insignificance. Although some still find offense to the word, the overall impact is like being struck with a feather boa instead of a leather lash.

Yet, the regurgitation of a historically offensive word has not washed away the original offense (or the offender). Today, the bayonet called queer has just been replaced by another weapon of choice, the semi-automated fag. So, must the F-bomb be ameliorated as well? And what then will the run of the mill bigot conjure up to sling?

Should we be free in 2008, a time when all people continue to sway the scales of individualized justice, to use whatever words we fancy in whatever way we please? After all, someone will always be offended as the English alphabet becomes a roll call of what not to say. Backlash is inevitable when all is censored and none are free.

Despite a word's amelioratory firepower, I, for one, feel the most sting when I witness the words roll off the tongues of the younger, young (or very young) who remember not the wound the words created.

So I wonder: Is it better for words like queer and fag to be ameliorated? Can the power of words used to denigrate masses of people be shifted? Do certain groups have a license to used derogatory words as they please?

Gay Life reader, Takim, challenges my 2003 pro-queer stance with an eye-opening realization. Read on:

"Dear Ramone,

You write in Is 'Queer' a Derogatory Word?: Did you know that today, the word "queer" is most often used in a non-derogatory way? Once used by homophobes to negatively describe a gay man or woman, the term is now being used by the gay community itself as a positive or neutral descriptive of each other. By embracing a word that was used to attack or degrade, the gay community has demagnetized the strength of the word, making it a common everyday term. This lessens the effect of the word when used against them.'

Without applying Rocket Science; it would follow then that if I identify myself as a "queer ni**ah" I would be 'demagnetizing the strength of the word' as well?"

Sincerely,
Takim

Even though Takim's words are on a 2-D screen, his self-identification as a "queer ni**ah" stinks my ears like the high weeze of a jet engine. And so I answer Takim's cleverly appreciated call out:

Takim,

If you'd written to me back in 2003 I would have a very different answer than I have for you today; and I can't promise that as I evolve, as we evolve, I won't have a different answer 5 years from now. Perhaps back in '03 I was indifferent and took little responsibility in the words that I wrote to you. But now, as we speak, though not in person and despite our virtual distance as strangers, the possibility of you identifying as a "queer ni**ah" cripples my amiable pen—one that I've learned must change, must be an example, a mentor and a role model. My hope is that your identity rests as a "beautiful gay African-American man." A man that has little use for ameliorated words. A man is so confident and so strong and so incredibly actualized that even the original offense of those ameliorated word have little impact. So, I say don't ameliorate the words for use as your identity, let them burn in the char of hatred in which they were created.

Yours evolved,
Ramone

_{Image © Marc Garrido i Puig.}