Slurs are offensive words used about people on account of them belonging to certain groups,for example based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity. The topic of slurs has interestedphilosophers of language recently, and there are several theories trying to explain them. Mostassume that slurs have Neutral Counterparts, non-offensive words that can be used more or lesssynonymously with certain slurs. In this thesis I attempt to construct a theory of slurs withoutneutral counterparts. First, I give a background where I explain extension, content and neutralcounterparts. Then I describe popular theories about how slurs offend. After that I summarizeAlice Damirjian’s critique against neutral counterparts in her article “Rethinking slurs”. Againstthis background I explain my theory of slurs; slurs lack neutral counterparts, and they refer toentirely different classes than so called “neutral counterparts” do. Instead, slurs refer nonphysical sociocultural constructions, while “Neutral counterparts” refer to physical people.While the relation between slurs and “neutral counterparts” is non-semantic, it is pragmatic;there is a widespread misconception that slurs and “neutral counterparts” are more or lesssynonymous. Slurs offend since their sociocultural constructions are associated withstereotypes that are attributed to the people that their so called “neutral counterparts” refer to.After I explain my theory I respond to counterarguments, and the thesis is concluded with asummary.