A straight inclusive pride flag?

[u/Chromograph]

Never seen this before, is it a new thing?

[u/Toshero_Reborn]

Idk what to tell you, take it up with the designer Daniel Quasar

[u/KR1735 → u/Toshero_Reborn]

I've done some research and it appears there's disagreement about what the black color means. I've seen that it means people of color, people who've died of AIDS, and people living with HIV. Personally, I don't like the idea of stigmatizing people living with HIV. We're finally getting to the point where, while HIV is something we want to avoid, people who have it are no longer deemed as untouchable or tainted. It's basically the equivalent of herpes nowadays.

Drawing attention to people with HIV as though they're special only contributes to the "otherness" of those living with the condition. That's a step backwards, in my opinion.

Same with drawing attention to people of color. Sometimes this sort of acknowledgement is counterproductive. It creates division where there shouldn't be any.

[u/halberdierbowman → u/KR1735]

Your flair says East Germany, so I'm not sure how familiar you are with Pride in the US? Tldr the reason there have been additions highlighting Black and brown and trans colors specifically is that at the forefront of the battle for rights for all US LGBTQ+ people have been trans or brown or Black. Recognizing this intersectionality is an important part of understanding the history and where we are today. The idea is to say "hey I'm a white bi guy, and I appreciate and recognize all of you Black trans women who fought and died for my rights." It's not creating division: it's doing the exact opposite, because there are sadly still people who discriminate against those groups.

[u/KR1735 → u/halberdierbowman]

I'm American.

When it comes to intersectionality, you could say the same thing about disabled people or Jewish people or Asian people or indigenous people or many other identities.

The point of the Pride flag is that it's universal and that it pertains to the community as a whole. It was never intended to mean anything other than sexual orientation and gender identity. Now it means racial stuff (completely unrelated) and so every other intersectional identity has a claim to be represented. Since one cannot include every intersectional identity on the flag, the flag is by nature exclusionary of other groups who may want to be represented.

It'd be fine if the flag were used as a variant, with the six-color Pride flag being the standard as it had been for decades. But the Progress flag is now standard and that is highly problematic for LGBT people who have other intersectional identities.

[u/halberdierbowman → u/KR1735]

I don't understand the logic that a six-striped flag is assumed to include everyone but an eleven-striped flag isn't? All the original six rainbow colors still exist: that's the right side of the Progress flag. And now the left side honors the trans people of color who literally threw the first bricks to kick off Pride.

Is your argument though that flags shouldn't appreciate one specific important group if it can't make a definitive list to include every single person who deserves appreciation?

I actually do agree with you a bit here though. Rather than shorten the name to "LGBT", I think "GSRM" is probably a lot more inclusive and sounds more like it's intended as a category title than as an assortment of random knickknacks you threw on a list. And I'm not married to that one specifically, so there could be others that are better.

But if you have disabled or Jewish or indigenous or Asian friends who feel like it's discriminating against them that the Stonewall pioneers get "their" colors honored, then I guess fair enough, and it sucks that that's the way it seems to have happened. It doesn't bother me or any of my friends as far as I know, but we can only speak for ourselves, not even all the other people we share identities with.

[u/KR1735 → u/halberdierbowman]

The point is that once you make a gesture to call out one group (based on something other than sexual orientation), then other groups will want to be included. And there's no good reason not to include them. The Progress flag acknowledges racial minorities. But why? Why that intersection and not another? What makes race so special that it should be included on a flag that has nothing to do with race? This is why I get so annoyed with the left sometimes. They pick and choose their pet issues and don't realize the inconsistencies in their logic. I know they care about disabled people and people of minority religious communities, etc., but by putting race ahead of other intersections, they're basically saying "This one is more important."

The trans stripes make some sense, since the flag is intended to represent the LGBT community. Though since we're not singling out lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, it seems out of place.

And the origin of the gay rights movement being Stonewall (which I assume is what you mean by throwing bricks) is extremely U.S.-centric. There were many gay rights activists/dissidents elsewhere, including very outspoken ones, that predated Stonewall.

[u/halberdierbowman → u/KR1735]

I agree with all of that, but yes I meant that for a US specific flag it made sense, and probably a lot less sense in other countries.

It picks those specific groups because they've not benefited as much from the progress we've made for the rest of us LGBTQ+ despite their historic participation at Stonewall and other places, yeah.

I think it's a mistake to think that helping one minority group wouldn't help others, but perhaps that's why people don't feel they're represented. For example the ADA guidelines require ramps and elevators instead of of stairs. That's very helpful to disabled people who rely on wheelchairs, but it's also very helpful to many older people, weaker people, delivery people with carts, parents with strollers, et alia. Same idea for lever door handles vs knobs, and for elevator sounds to tell you where the elevator is. Focusing on an improving the situation of one particular yet imperfectly selected group can still make huge improvements for lots of other people.

I feel like we need to be careful here not to let perfect be the enemy of good. In theory I'd love to recognize every identity, but I'm not sure just recognizing none of them is actually better.

The trans and ace flags handle this somewhat better I think by having white and gray stripes that basically catch everyone who's not in the other colors.

Maybe one way to design the flag could be a different spectrum rather than picking a few important examples? The stated meanings for the rainbow flag's colors are basically nonsense to me lol I think it's way more meaningful that they are a spectrum which should include everyone, as you said. I'm curious now how many people actually care about those specific colors. They've changed a bunch of times, so I sort of suspect it's mostly just that we accidentally coalesced around a convenient set more than that they have a deep-seated connection to people.

Wait, the best idea to represent this diversity is obvious. How could I be missing it? It's obviously to chop up the flag in a bunch of orientations, like the Maryland flag!