Elijah999999 wrote:

Scratch137 wrote:

mcsquaggle wrote:

(#39)
but about the whole “but what if others want their sexuality to be included”
1. its smol so resolution go brr
2. sorry but skibidisexual is not a sexuality
3. if everyone is included, all those colors will result in the flag looking like the rainbow gods vomited over some paper.

That's not really relevant here. The proposal is not to invent a new rainbow flag design with the intersex symbol on it—the design has already been made. The suggestion is just for Scratch to adopt that design.

Whether or not other symbols should be added to the flag is a separate issue that's outside the scope of Scratch.

Why shouldn't Scratch adopt all 345665432345* designs as well?
*Debatable. I just ran my finger over the number pad.

That's exactly my point.

bbump

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

It’s scratch always uses LGBTQ not LGBTQI so they prolly decided to stop there

nobody uses LGBTQQIP2SAA. it honestly seems like something you would see below a barcode on the sticker

bbump

Elijah999999 wrote:

Scratch137 wrote:

mcsquaggle wrote:

(#39)
but about the whole “but what if others want their sexuality to be included”
1. its smol so resolution go brr
2. sorry but skibidisexual is not a sexuality
3. if everyone is included, all those colors will result in the flag looking like the rainbow gods vomited over some paper.

That's not really relevant here. The proposal is not to invent a new rainbow flag design with the intersex symbol on it—the design has already been made. The suggestion is just for Scratch to adopt that design.

Whether or not other symbols should be added to the flag is a separate issue that's outside the scope of Scratch.

Why shouldn't Scratch adopt all 345665432345* designs as well?
*Debatable. I just ran my finger over the number pad.

I was initially aligned with this line of thinking but one must note that there exist six mainstream flag designs, making the ‘maximum’ of any slippery slope effect being just six or thereabouts; and naturally, separate conversations would exist for the addition of any of those flags - and any such whataboutism in a seperate suggestion about existing additions is an easily disproven argument because there are clear distinctions to be made between a mainstream, popular Pride flag, like the intersex-inclusive and Progress Pride flags, and lesser known variations like some of those listed at the above source - even if all such flags were added, such would be minimal clutter considering we already have emojis for six types of food.

bump

Having read through some of this topic the prevailing line in opposition to this suggestion utilises the slippery slope argument (which has been called out before).

There are a few issues with this reasoning.

#1, while this is only present on some arguments on this thread, there's some aspect in people's reasoning that goes along the lines of ‘if we include intersex people, we’ll be including a or b next, and that's a bad thing'. I don't think I need to explain why this isn't an argument – inclusion alone isn't a bad thing.

While I doubt that these posts intended to come across this way, that's certainly how they read.

#2, the slightly more legitimate and better-intentioned variant of #1, is, paraphrasing again, ‘if we include intersex people, we’ll be including a or b next, and then c and d and so forth and it'll be too much to put on a flag'. I understand the reasoning here, but this seems to assume that Scratch would be using some never-before-seen variant of the flag. In reality, the intersex-inclusive flag is one of the most commonly used variants on the flag: updating the Scratch pride emoji to use it wouldn't result in a flood of requests for specific parts of the community to be included since the intersex-inclusive flag is already used widely recognised outside Scratch.

I'd also like to address some specific posts:

op456 wrote:

-
I was initially aligned with this line of thinking but one must note that there exist six mainstream flag designs, making the ‘maximum’ of any slippery slope effect being just six or thereabouts; and naturally, separate conversations would exist for the addition of any of those flags - and any such whataboutism in a seperate suggestion about existing additions is an easily disproven argument because there are clear distinctions to be made between a mainstream, popular Pride flag, like the intersex-inclusive and Progress Pride flags, and lesser known variations like some of those listed at the above source - even if all such flags were added, such would be minimal clutter considering we already have emojis for six types of food.

To add my piece to this, I don't see the need to include 6 separate emojis. Not only would it be confusing to people who are unaware/have low awareness of the lgbt+ community, it would also be a source of tension within: I can see people opting to use the progress flag rather than the intersex inclusive flag specifically to exclude intersex people, and can see similar issues with including the base flag and the exclusion of trans people.

I think it's best Scratch include one emoji to represent everyone - I personally don't mind which (between the two progress variants), and I can see valid arguments either way (see bottom of post)

han614698 wrote:

Adding intersex sets a standard for everyone to be included - now we need the trans flag and others in with it. The rainbow was meant to be flag that includes everyone.

As I said earlier, it doesn't set any precedent like that: the intersex pride flag is already widely recognised outside of Scratch.

“now we need the trans flag and others in with it. The rainbow was meant to be flag that includes everyone” - from my understanding, and cmiiw, but one of the major reasons for the adoption of the progress flag (which first appeared in 2018) was that the original design had stopped effectively representing everyone. Trans-exclusionary LGB groups (the majority of which were astroturfed) made a concerted and fairly successful effort to change the what the flag represented (from lgbt+ to specifically gay/lesbian/(sometimes) bi). The progress flag, mitigated this issue by directly including trans representation.

han614698 wrote:

When in reality, intersex is such a small percent of the LGBTQ community, and some would argue it’s not even LGBTQ since it’s generally not like anything else there.

This is a bad take.

First, it's incorrect. From some cobbled-together data, about 4% of people are lgbt+ excluding intersex people. 1.7% of people are intersex. If every intersex person considered themselves under the same umbrella as lgbt+ people (which not all do), they would add nearly an extra 50% to that 4%.

Second, “it’s generally not like anything else there” – the term ‘lgbt+’ and its many variations do not exist as a name for some specific already-existing group, but rather for the wide range of groups/people who have faced a similar form of discrimination based on atypical relationships with gender and orientation. Many intersex people are no stranger to this.

The similarities between intersex people and trans people appear to vary wildly - and for some they do - but for the rest there are a number of similarities: issues with gender identity, dysphoria, etc. are thought of as specific to trans people, but are also experienced by a number of intersex people.

Third, “and some would argue it’s not even LGBTQ” – From what I've seen on this, the consensus is that an intersex person can be considered under the lgbt+ umbrella if that person wants to. Sort of ‘there’s always room' rather than always necessarily being lgbt+.

-

I said ‘see bottom of post’ somewhere so here's what I was referring to (I've already covered support for the intersex flag, so this is a reason to keep the progress flag):

#1 The progress flag is aesthetically better. It's not as cluttered as the intersex one, and it does represent everyone (albeit not at a glance).

#2 As I've mentioned before, not all intersex people consider themselves to be lgbt+. Given that, it could be argued it should be left off the flag.

Do I agree with these two counters? No, but which argument is most compelling is subjective. I cannot see any possible way that the ‘slippery slope’ arguments hold up, however.

Support! Scratch added the _pride_ emoji the same year the intersex inclusive flag was designed, so they didn't really have a chance to use the new design. I think changing the flag's design really won't cause any problems and could be a quick change made that will help more people feel included.

Also, I don't feel like emoji clutter is a problem since the emoji already renders rather large.

AceCoderClaws wrote:

Also, I don't feel like emoji clutter is a problem since the emoji already renders rather large.

i thiiiiiiiiiink fitting a circle and yellow in that small white part may be a problem. they could always shift the trans and blm part to the right a bit though

hydrofungus wrote:

AceCoderClaws wrote:

Also, I don't feel like emoji clutter is a problem since the emoji already renders rather large.

i thiiiiiiiiiink fitting a circle and yellow in that small white part may be a problem. they could always shift the trans and blm part to the right a bit though

This was already addressed here

AceCoderClaws wrote:

This was already addressed here

I mean you could have linked that instead of just saying space wasnt a problem on an emoji where space is a problem

hydrofungus wrote:

AceCoderClaws wrote:

This was already addressed here

I mean you could have linked that instead of just saying space wasnt a problem on an emoji where space is a problem

I wasn't addressing if there was enough space in the emoji to add it. Instead, I was commenting I didn't think the emoji would look too cluttered with the addition.