The question of whether historically disparaging terms can sometimes be used in non-disparaging ways surfaces in some unexpected places. For example, how should the US Patent and Trademark Office handle applications for self-disparaging trademarks, such as Dykes on Bikes? Decisions about patents and trademarks date back over two hundred years, back to the first patent statute of 1790. Contention over the trademarking of disparaging terms is much newer. The word dyke to refer to a lesbian is not cited in the Oxford English Dictionary until 1942, and throughout its history, the word has often been used disparagingly. This history became relevant to the Patent and Trademark Office in 2003, when the potential trademark of Dykes on Bikes crossed its desk. Governing trademark law, known as the Lanham Act, bars trademarks that comprise “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter” or “may disparage. . . persons. . . institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” (quoted in Anten 2006, 399). The language of this law brings to the fore the critical question of who determines what is and is not disparaging, and who has the right to use certain historically loaded identity terms in what contexts – questions central to this chapter.

For more than a century, the United States has witnessed vigorous and often heated debates about the terms used to refer to marginalized social groups, both more neutral identity terms and historically derogatory terms. The twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century have also seen remarkably successful attempts to replace and reclaim identity labels, including terms related to gender and sexuality and terms related to race and ethnicity. These debates reveal an intense focus on the relationship of words to identity (particularly group identity) and raise questions about who gets to use words, who gets to tell people not to use words, and how to harness the social and political power of words. The resulting self-consciousness about how speakers should and shouldn’t use the language has the power to affect actual usage – which makes it important to the history of the language.