Talk:LGBTQ symbols

Polyamory and leather flags

Since polyamory is not a fetish I thought I’d move the discussion to a separate one. Like I said: Strong remove: The polyamory and leather flags should be removed since it’s not inherently LGBTQIA. Yes they have history but it’s not inherent. Also, hypothetically if polyamory would be included in the community then other forms of non monogamy would be too when non monogamy in general has been part of religions and can be heteronormative like in bro culture polyamory is seen as heteronormative. Yes, leather fetishes do have history with gay men but that doesn’t make it inherently LGBTQIA. Christianity has history with LGBTQIA people but that doesn’t make it part of the community. I do think though that the leather fetish articles should be part of LGBTQ studies here on Wikipedia since they do have historical connections. This link is a psychology website and it says there’s no relationship between polyamory and LGBTQIA. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/better-or-worse/202103/polyamory-the-gay-conservative-where-does-it-stop I’ve see that one user supports the removal. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Remove per suggestion. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6495465/#:~:text=Conclusions,a%20social%20and%20cultural%20context.

This says that leather is a fetish and as I’ve said before fetishism is not a sexual minority and unlike sexual minorities it can become a disorder.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/fetishistic-disorder/amp

https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/mental-health-disorders/paraphilias-and-paraphilic-disorders/fetishistic-disorder

Like these two links say it can become a paraphilic disorder called fetishistic disorder. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Also people can be forced into being into polyamorous relationships. People can’t be forced into sexual minorities. They’re born that way. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

And action doesn’t equal sexuality. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Also people can be forced into being into polyamorous relationships. People can’t be forced into sexual minorities. I'm failing to see A) how someone can be forced into a polyamorous relationship any more or less than a same-sex one and B) what the relevance of that is. I'm not sure I buy that being "born that way" makes a difference or is based in science — IMO it doesn't really matter whether gay or trans people are born that way or if it's a chosen behavior or if it's something else, at the end of the day, what these flags have in common is representing is an identity relating to gender or sexuality, not genetic code or anything else. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Totally agree. If you would like to comment on the other section on this page, about the proposed removal of the rubber and pony flags, feel free to do so as well. Historyday01 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m part of the LGBTQIA community myself. We can’t choose our sexualities or genders. That is the point. Bigots all the time like to say we’re choosing but we’re not. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777 — I'm also part of the LGBTQIA community. To say that it matters whether or not we chose our gender or sexuality is to fundamentally agree with the conservative idea that there would be something wrong with choosing to engage in a consensual relationship with someone of the same gender, or choosing to change your gender. The truth is that there is no objective morality that would tell us these things are wrong. To my understanding, the actual science behind whether gender and sexuality is genetic is also quite shaky. The bigots are wrong not because they say you're choosing, but because they say its wrong to be gay. However, this is also off-topic of the discussion here, which has to do with criteria for inclusion: and that should be based on reliable, secondary sources, not anyone's views of where sexuality comes from. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Right there’s nothing wrong with any of those things. The point I’m trying to make is people shouldn’t be conflating relationship styles and fetishes with the community. It’s offensive DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources that was provided say that polyamory is LGBTQIA inherently. That psychology today article says that it isn't. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The justification for removing polyamory flag is faulty. I had forgotten that you were the one who declared back in 2023 that "Polyamory is not generally considered LGBT because it's not a sexuality, gender, or romantic orientation" and tried to take off the LGBT bar from the List of fictional polyamorous characters page (which was the wrong thing to do then and still is the wrong thing now), and it still remains. Looking back at those discussions, I would ask that @Another Believer, @Demt1298, @Sakura Cartelet (under another name), weigh in here considering comments in a somewhat related discussion as to whether the "List of fictional polyamorous characters" article falls into WikiProject LGBT studies. I feel the same way about the leather flag. I strongly oppose removal of that flag too. Your arguments are not convincing me to support removal. I would strongly caution the OP to not assume there is consensus on this because only three users (the OP and two others) have currently responded.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I left a link to a psychology today article that says there’s no relationship between polyamory and the LGBTQIA community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t conflate unrelated relationship styles and fetishes with the LGBTQIA community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

They aren't unrelated relationship styles. People who are polyamorous relationships are in LGBTQIA community. That's a fact. Not everyone that is polyamorous is part of that community, but there's enough of a connection between polyamory and the LGBTQIA community, plus the current sources for the polyamory flags support the new hidden text:

READ BEFORE ADDING A FLAG: IF the flag is not explained above, it should have ONE to TWO reliable sources for its inclusion!. All content must be supported with reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE; also see WP:NOT, WP:ONEDAY). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas and personal inventions (WP:FORUM). Medium, Tumblr, and Reddit blogs are not acceptable as sources (WP:RSSELF, WP:USERG). Source(s) must explain the flag’s history and connection to the LGBTQ+ community.

The leather pride flag's page on here is relatively robust, but other sources in Lavender Magazine (also here and here), Leather Archives & Museum (interview with the flag's creator), schwulesmuseum, and Bay Area Reporter, to name a few examples, which support its inclusion. Historyday01 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Right people who are in polycules could be in the LGBTQIA community if they aren't straight or cisgender inherently. But cishet people do it too. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't justify getting rid of any of these flags. Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Lean keep. This just seems like a Wikipedia version the infamous "kink at pride" discourse that's pretty easy to find on social media sites. Inclusion should be based on what secondary reliable sources say about the flags and their relationship to LGBTQ identity, which I see provided above by HistoryDay, not WP:OR about what constitutes a fetish or a disorder or anything else. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because something has history with the LGBTQIA community doesn't make it part of the community. Religions like Christianity have history with the LGBTQIA community but that doesn't make it part of it. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Inclusion should certainly be based upon secondary reliable sources say about the flags and their relationship to LGBTQ identity, as you put it. Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s conflating polyamory and fetishes with the community when they’re not inherently part of it. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This is giving radqueer vibes. That’s when someone thinks that all Paraphilias should be LGBTQIA. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@DarknessGoth777 and @Historyday01: I want to caution both of you regarding this discussion and #Fetish flags above it. DarknessGoth, you are making far too many comments and it is becoming an issue of WP:BLUDGEONING. You should not be replying to every comment disagreeing with you — you're currently sitting at 44 comments between these two threads, which is too many when there have only been 5 unique !votes cast. Additionally, saying things like, This is giving radqueer vibes about another user feels very WP:ASPERSION-y, please remember to focus on content, not the contributor. HistoryDay, you're also at risk of bludgeoning, with 37 comments in the two discussions, and several of your comments, including pinging specific users and encouraging specific users to comment in the above discussion, could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. I'd encourage both of you to take a step back and let these discussions play out on their own. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I don't have any intention of replying to any additional comments apart from what I have already said, as you are right, I've already said a lot. As for encouraging specific users, I was only noting those which commented in a related discussion, which I thought could be relevant here. To be completely transparent, I promoted this very discussion on six WikiProjects yesterday (WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Anthropology, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Gender studies, and WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies) and on Wiki Loves Pride, asking for comments. That should fully, and completely, allay any concern about encouraging specific users in this discussion. I have no idea whether my posts on those WikiProjects will bring people here, but I hope it will. Historyday01 (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok I understand. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t mean it as a personal attack. I was talking about how the comments on keeping were feeling as an implication that kinks and fetishes are inherently LGBTQIA. None of the sources that I saw said that Polyam, kinks, and fetishes were part of the community inherently. If flags representing those things are on a LGBTQ symbols list the it implies it’s inherently part of the community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be a RFC on this discussion and the fetish flags discussion too. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: U.S. Queer Women's History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2026 and 19 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariannakerfoot (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mak.studentwgs (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment for Flag Inclusions

Should the gallery include kink, polyamory, and fetish flags? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Remove per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: '...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' The fact that a person somewhere has designed a flag for something or someone does not automatically mean we need to include it here. Their inclusion here gives these obscure flags WP:UNDUE weight. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree completely. Also, sources I’ve sorted say that LGBTQIA means sexual and gender minorities and don’t include fetishes, kinks, or polyamory. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/09/27/polyamory-lgbtq-polysexuality-meaning/

This article from PinkNews says that polyamory is not LGBTQ. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/better-or-worse/202103/polyamory-the-gay-conservative-where-does-it-stop/amp

This psychology today link says polyamory is not LGBTQ. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Repeating this discussion on a monthly basis seems to be veering into JDLI territory. The reasoning for inclusion can be seen in the discussions that were previously had in December and January. If RS say they are used as such symbols, then it is fully justified to have them included as such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Cdjp1's rationale. Three out of four sections on this page are this RFC's opener trying to push through the same thing. (Of note: They also tried taking it to the LGBTQ studies WikiProject talk page about a week ago.) This fourth discussion (including the LGBTQ studies one) in three months by the same user asking about the same thing with no new rationales that might persuade consideration of a change to the consensus of the first three is... I don't know if WP:BLUDGEON is the feeling I'm getting here or what but I'm getting some sort of feeling in that ballpark off this behavior. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources listed to include the flags say polyamory, fetishes, or kinks are automatically LGBTQIA so they shouldn’t be on a gallery for LGBTQ symbols. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not presenting an argument you didn't present the first three times; I find it difficult to understand how a fourth time of presenting this rationale when the previous three discussions I referred to are so recent is supposed to lead to a different consensus. That's why I linked WP:BLUDGEON--I'm reticent when it comes to outright saying you're bludgeoning the process because I'm never sure when it comes to calling something like that out and that's something you want to be sure about before you say it about someone, but it feels as if you think if you repeat the same unchanged argument without making any adjustments to improve it frequently enough then you will be able to force your argument to become the consensus. Instead, it is more likely that repeating the same unimproved argument in this kind of situation will weaken it, and with each time you do it, your behavior is more likely to be seen as disruptive. My !vote was advocating for closing this due to that, but it was quicker and more concise to say "per Cdjp1" and then build off that "per". - Purplewowies (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Cdjp1 that repeating this discussion ad nauseam is not helpful. I stand with what I said in the previous discussion on this very page, at here and here: that the reliable sources support inclusion. I have to disagree with Djp4004 on this count, as I do not believe that the flags are obscure, nor are they undue weight. I also have to strongly disagree with the wrongheaded argument of Kingsif, which provides no sourcing to back up stated claims, and absurdly claims that keeping the flags is "misinformation" which it is clearly not, and that somehow keeping the flags will cause "harmful stereotypes" to persist (also not proven).--Historyday01 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Snowclose. Agree with the above suggestions of bludgeoning the process, as editors appear to have clearly addressed this topic already. The fact that reliable sources list the leather and poly etc. flags in lists of "LGBTQ pride flags" means that Wikipedia ought to as well. This does not imply (nor requires) that such practices are inherently queer, but their historical and ongoing proximity to queer communities are notable, and the reason these concepts (as opposed to, say, enthusiasts of the missionary position) have colorful flags in the first place. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. if removed, there's a possibility of replacing the excerpted section and the flags still kept in Pride flag. Because this discussion should have happened in Talk:Pride flag, and here you are only discussing about inclusion or not on LGBTQ symbols. Abesca (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I think if the decision was to remove based on being out of scope, it would be logically applied there even if not about there. Kingsif (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Simply put, the OP is trying to push their opinion yet again, in another way. This whole discussion is growing tiresome, as there have already been multiple long discussions about the same topic.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

    I’m not trying to push anything. All I’m doing is stating a fact. I don’t understand why these flags aren’t removed to avoid misinformation. When is trying to prevent misinformation bad? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    I stand by what I said. I do find the discussion tiresome because as I said, and RoxySanders has said in this discussion, there have been multiple discussions about this in recent months, all of which I have directly participated in. As Rosaece says below, "This is the fourth discussion about this topic in three months initiated by the same editor. This is very quickly approaching WP:IDHT territory." Also, I personally disagree that inclusion of the flags is "misinformation." Historyday01 (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    Also there are only 3% of keeps and removes so it can still keep going. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    Right now there are three who want to remove the flags, three keeps, one keep/snowclose, and I doubt anyone else will weigh in at this point. I personally see no point in weighing in any more myself. Historyday01 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Since we are still here: I oppose removing them from Pride flags. And especially here, Leather flag is inherently LGBTQ. Not only that, many also demonstrated Lipstick lesbian flag is indirectly based on it and Bear flag, and it is a historical flag, the first after the rainbow, perhaps the first to be distinct from the ones from other cultures. The reasoning seems also to appeal for Respectability politics (WP:CENSORED). Abesca (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I completely agree. I'm trying to keep my comments relatively limited since I commented a lot before already, so I'll say is that I agree with your reasoning. Historyday01 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Anybody can do leather and anybody can have these other things. It’s labeling anything non normative LGBTQ which can be harmful. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  As we do have the "Pride flag" article, it may do well to trim the representative flags in this article and have just a minimal section pointing to the "Pride flag" article. So, you would trim it to 3–5 of the most historically significant flags. But of course, this would need a differently scoped discussion to make such a determination. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  That would be a good idea. Like leave a redirect to the pride flag article. That would be ok. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Remove The discussion has clearly been repeated to make it a formal question, rather than something that leads nowhere when there's no agreement between individuals. Users do not have to participate if they don't like it. Anyway, it should be very clear that kinks and fetishes are not exclusive nor inclusive to the LGBTQ+ community even if two sources (clearly being as broad as possible to show off 'look there's loads and loads of queer flags', BTW) simply picture them in lists when the majority of definitive lists do not. Without much information, either, which also leads to potential INDISCRIMINATE and WEIGHT concerns. The main issue, though, is misinformation and, in this case, the potential for that to cause harm. Labelling anything related to non-vanilla sex as LGBTQ+ is damaging to sex education, straight people engaging in kinks/fetishes, and potentially perception of the LGBTQ+ community. Let's not perpetuate harmful stereotypes by following bad inclusion examples. Kingsif (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. It does perpetuate stereotypes and leads to misinformation. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Strong Remove - Polyamory, fetishes, and kinks are not LGBTQIA at all. Keeping them spreads misinformation. No source given to justify inclusion says it’s inherently part of the community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Of course none of those things are inherently LGBTQ; no one is arguing otherwise. But those communities do have historical ties to the LGBTQ community, which has been covered in reliable sources. I'm not for or against their inclusion here, but it's not misinformation by any definition of the word. Rosaece ♡ talk to me! 09:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment This is the fourth discussion about this topic in three months initiated by the same editor. This is very quickly approaching WP:IDHT territory. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 12:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline to state – I would have gladly given an opinion, until I learned of this question having been raised several times recently by the same editor. I now support a moratorium on this topic being raised again in an Rfc for the next eighteen months. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Historyday01 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I also support a moratorium if this closes as anything other than removing the flags (i.e. if it closes as keep, no consensus, etc.). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

These comments seem to directly contradict the letter and spirit of WP:RFC. You're supposed to have discussions at the talk before you start an RFC. How can the existence of prior discussions be an argument for a not !voting, or for a moratorium (see WP:RFCBEFORE). Am I missing something? Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are. I reject your assertion; the comments do indeed support the letter and spirit of WP:RFC, one of the more expensive formal procedures at Wikipedia. However your question is too meta and o/t for a fuller explanation here, but I am happy to go into more detail at your Talk page if you like. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your comment in that the comments made above clearly support the letter and spirit of WP:RFC. I reiterate my support for a moratorium, since the same editor keeps raising this same issue repeatedly. Also, the Alaexis's assertion that "You're supposed to have discussions at the talk before you start an RFC" is moot because much of this talk page is filled with previous discussions (as are those on related WikiProjects). Sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ditto above. What editor Mathglot said, exactly, to the letter. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Courtesy ping for those from the prior discussions, as this is now raised as a formal RfC: @Historyday01: @Kingsif: @MikutoH: @Wasianpower: -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The WikiProjects list at the top of the Talk Page have all now been notified. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Planning to comment shortly. Historyday01 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)