It was just an innocent word that conveyed just that meaning of something "odd" or "unusual". This was the normal meaning for the word until about a century ago. But "queer" began to be the disparagement for homosexuals and lesbians since then (Irvine, Martha).
How do some words and nouns change meaning They say, it is all in the mind. The mind is the source of all things, good and bad. You accept what is good and leave aside the things that are not so nice. However, socio-political or socio-economical situation does not pay homage to such noble acceptances or rejections. These words become outright evil in the minds of people and they are so treated with abomination and hatred that it becomes another synonym for the devil himself. Otherwise, why would they generate caution and circumspection to such an extent that their usage begins to draw ire and consequences!
"For example, the marks REDSKINS and REDSKINETTES as applied to football entertainment services, and MOONIES as applied to a doll that exposes its buttocks, have been criticized as disparaging Native Americans and religious followers of the Unification Church, respectively. But in each of these examples, the applicant seeking trademark protection was not a member of the disparaged group; rather, the applicant was a nonmember, attaching a historic slur to a product targeted toward the general public" (Anten, Todd).
Hence, as a rule of thumb, it is generally accepted that when a word associated disparagingly with a group is put forward for something serious like legal clearance for registration, such words are counted as being derisive of a group, it may be any group, and these words have to be expunged. But the question arises. Why must these words be expunged What is wrong in them They are not bad words. These words express a meaning. They may sound derisive to some. But they are understood to stand for something that may be noble. They need not stand for the gospel truth when they are mistook for something that may differ from their original meaning.
We all know what is "bitch". The word has evolved to an extent that is exists in an out-of-shape form. I readily understand that a bitch is an odious woman. Yes, that is bitch! It is that woman I do not care about. She is a bitch! You tell her anything she will believe. She is a dirty woman! So she is a bitch. Unacceptable as this word has become, it is bandied about in all hue and shape with chivalrous regularity. The word may be synonymous with infamy. But its reach has scaled dizzying levels. One may not feel overwhelmed or ashamed when it is associated with none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton (Zeisler, Andi).
This sounds hilarious as well as hegemonic. The same group that is using a word for an international figure has also discarded the original meaning for "bitch". Call it a she-dog. Do not call her a bitch. The bite in the word "bitch" has turned so nasty that it has assassinated its original owner.
Word re-appropriation goes hand in hand with word misappropriation. Not that it is intended to be misappropriated. But the process of gradual re-appropriation has