AS someone with a keen interest in linguistics, I find the concept of “bad” language quite interesting.

It's always been intriguing that there are precise groupings of letters, certain mouth-made vibrations that have the power to cause such offence.

Why is it culturally taboo to swear at someone in a conversation where it would be perfectly acceptable to disparage their intellect or abilities, providing this was done in a “professional” manner?

Indeed, when it comes to our perception of offence, often it seems that the articulation of an idea takes precedence over the idea itself.

For example, it is perfectly acceptable to pass discriminatory policy, or to use dehumanising language in Parliament, but the use of "profane" language is strictly prohibited.

READ MORE: Lennie Pennie: We should never feel guilty for taking time off work

You might be interested to know that alongside the expected expletives, words such as “deceptive”, “dodgy”, “falsehoods”, and “hypocrite” have all been deemed “unparliamentary language” at one point.

It’s perfectly okay to enact yet another legislative laceration on minoritised people, but heaven forfend someone someone should get called a “git” for doing so.

In truth, there is no hard and fast rule for what constitutes an offensive word, much like the rest of language, both the words themselves and the rules which define them are entirely made up.

Religious people might find blasphemy offensive, whereas an atheist might not.

Equally there are words used against certain groups which will obviously be deemed more offensive to the people the word is used to hurt and marginalise.

In recent years there has been a concerted effort for marginalised groups to reclaim slurs that have been used against their community, as a means of regaining control over the language and rhetoric surrounding minority communities.

These words often do not have the same connotations when used to self-describe, and demonstrate the difference between intention, impact and intended recipient. This kind of reclamation has always had a place in language, and can form a valid part of efforts towards decolonisation and intersectionality.

READ MORE: We should never have to change the way we speak to be taken seriously

Despite a perception of people who swear as having a limited intellect or vocabulary, studies show that swearing more frequently is actually indicative of mental acuity and rhetorical strength.

Perceptions of profanity are not, however, consistently applied to everyone. Due to societal expectations of femininity placed upon women, they are held to a higher standard of respectability, and are often expected not to swear, and judged more harshly if they do.

I experienced this myself this week, when I swore in a response to someone being fairly misogynistic online. There was no depravity or excessive profanity, just a simple and slightly sweary request to vacate my space quietlyand expeditiously.

Immediately I was inundated with comments telling me my behaviour was “unladylike”, “not classy”, “unattractive”, and “disappointing”, many of which used profanity in their response.

Like many other women who face an inequitable admonishment for their choice of language, I was unwillingly participating in the long and storied tradition of judgement given to women who deign to be profane.

A great example of this comes from Chaplain Richard Allestree, author of The Ladies’ Calling and everyone’s favourite Puritan preacher, who asserted that not only does swearing make a woman undergo a “metamorphosis” to become masculine, but that when it comes to the sound of female profanity “no noise on this side of Hell can be more amazingly odious”.

If anything, that makes me want to ramp up the production of profanity even more.

It’s important to acknowledge that the offensiveness of words is not a constant; words can become profane or unacceptable, or lose their inappropriate status depending on the context within which they are viewed.

READ MORE: Sick notes aren't the real problem with the modern workplace

An ass is a donkey, hell is an integral concept for biblical study, a bitch is a dog, bloody can be used to describe scenes more offensive than the word itself ever could be, and yet in the right context, the right combination of letters can go from being benign and acceptable to profane and worthy of censorship.

We even use words we deem harmless as placeholders for words with offensive connotations, a euphemistic tiptoe around the fire of profanity, basking in the glow but staying safe from its offensive flames.

We might be more familiar with words like frick and heck in English, but there are also euphemisms like miércoles in Spanish and purée in French, specifically used to give the bark of swearing without the bite.

In a practical sense, censorship only really serves as partial obscuring of profanity: if I write the word f**k, you know what word I mean, I know what word I mean, nobody who is aware of the word is realistically being protected from engaging with it.

So maybe censorship is there to protect people from learning words which society deems bad, perhaps the mind, once tainted with the knowledge of profanity, can never escape these cursed curses.

PG movies are often allowed one instance of the word f**k, but if the word is uttered more than once the film will receive a much stricter rating.

This has always seemed counterintuitive to me, once you've heard the word, hearing it more doesn't really intensify the effects of the word.

It's worth noting that we once again see this notion of contextual offence, as if the F word is said in anything that could be construed as a sexual context, the stricter rating will automatically apply.

Due to the strict community guidelines on apps such as tiktok, people are trying to find creative ways to circumvent the censorship of their content. This has resulted in the coining of terms such as “unalive” to articulate concepts such as murder, death and suicide.

Tiktok states that, “While we don’t allow content that promotes, glorifies, or normalizes suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, we do support people who choose to share their experiences to raise awareness, help others who might be struggling, and find support among our community.”

Though this may seem reasonable, in practice this doesn’t seem to be the case, particularly since a lot of the content moderation is not done by people and instead bots will scan the audio for key words and phrases which are deemed inappropriate.

This has led to mental health advocates, survivors and people sharing their own experiences to have to use terms like “unalive” which to many might seem flippant and detract from the severity and solemnity of the subject.

I would much rather someone use expletives in context to give emphasis or emotional heft to a conversation than to use words deliberately to hurt another person, or to disparage themselves. Better a swear word than a slur, better profanity than prejudice.

Lennie Pennie is a Scottish poet and Scots language and mental health advocate