Talk:Lesbian flags

FYI regarding sources for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies

User-generated content is generally unacceptable. WP:RSP provides a list of sources that have been discussed and determined by consensus:
Re Twitter

"Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons."

However, if a Twitter account is the official account of a subject (e.g. person, network, company, organization) it can be used as a primary source about themselves.
Re Medium

"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."

Re Reddit

"Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies."

Also, the following are among the standards of Wikipedia policy WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reached out to the editor on Twitter and explained that better sources are needed. I'm not really seeing any great sources for the sunset flag at this time. The Cosmo article from last December doesn't mention it, but does at least say that the lipstick flag is "butch-phobic". gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Even in cases in which gossip is published by a publication such as Cosmopolitan, the question then becomes "where did Cosmopolitan get it from?" And if it's traced to allegations and accusations made in Tumblr, Medium, and/or Twitter it's best to stay away from it. Gossip and b.s. don't change their stripes simply because they're regurgitated elsewhere. Keep in mind that scurrilous content is also considered libelous. (By the way, the statement in that Cosmo piece about "...reportedly wrote racist, biphobic and transphobic comments on a since-deleted blog" is a cop-out by a lazy writer. Websites come and go all the time and the blog is found on Internet Archive: July 28, 2010, including the 2018 response to the mud slinging. The accusations against the creator of the lipstick flag started in a Medium blog and then were circulated on SM -- all of it fecal matter. And guess what ... the Medium blog that started it all was deleted.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay that totally clears it up for me. Thank you Pyxis. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Orange-pink design introduction date, claim of origin controversy

"The orange-pink design was originally introduced in 2016 as a butch/femme flag and controversy arose in 2020 over who had actually originated an orange-pink flag."

The source for this sentence is just a Twitter conversation between two people, which is absolutely not a reliable source. See WP:SPS and WP:TWITTER. Regarding the argument that that the existence of Template:Cite_tweet implies the acceptability of citing Twitter, please be aware that Twitter is only an acceptable source in very specific, very narrow circumstances. Please note the large all-bold warning at the top of the template page: Tweets are usually unacceptable as sources. Paisarepa 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

[1]

@Pyxis Solitary but how can many articles cite social media?! An example is melanie Martinez bipronominal sources (IG) Kautr (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Many editors don't know what they're doing, and many editors don't give a damn about how articles are supposed to be edited. And sometimes it takes a while before violations of editing policies are discovered in an article. But when they are, corrections and deletions are made based on Wikipedia policies. Verifiability is an unyielding, core policy and the sources used in articles and lists must be reliable. Tumblr is not a reliable source for anything. It is a social networking platform for sharing content via personal blogs. Anyone, anywhere can create something on Tumblr to be circulated among other Tumblr bloggers. Navel-gazing and self-promotion runs rampant.
Minimal use exceptions have been made for announcements issued via Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, even though they are self-publish sources, because the platforms are today being used as a means to make public announcements by the subject (i.e. primary source) of an article, or about the subject (i.e. secondary source) of an article. A tweet or post cannot be anonymous and needs to be serious and credible (example: a network announces the start date of new season for a series; an individual announces the birth of her/his child; an organization/company responds to an accusation). Sometimes important information about a subject is only available with an announcement made on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary now that you edited, then at least discredit Even Gwen. She isn't the reliable authouress as she claims to be, as it's stated in many places. Plus "her" flag is just a vexillological iteration of the butch flag, as it's barely noticed in the article Kautr (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I know about the butch flag. I also know that the 2018 flag Emily Gwen took credit for creating and introducing on Tumblr is a copy of the 2016 flag created by another designer. Gwen was smart in having someone (Majestic Mess website) publish a story about her flag design, because it gave her legitimacy. The original designer, "Chris", needs someone to publish a story about her creating the butch flag in 2016. Until there's a secondary source about the butch flag, content about it will be removed from this article. (Btw, the butch flag design you linked to is not the butch flag introduced in 2016.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims added under unrelated references

I edited the one still-remaining addition from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_flag&diff=prev&oldid=1026843012 to clarify that it is not backed up by the source at all - that edit added several new claims between existing references and the text actually supported by those references.

I would have been bold and just deleted it (it appears, hopefully, to be worded the opposite of the way the editor meant, because of a double negative), but I can see this page gets a lot of vandalism and disputes, so I wanted to let someone else agree that it should be removed.

Maeveynot (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions and statements unsupported with reliable sources do not remain in Wikipedia articles. And you're right about "this page gets a lot of vandalism and disputes" — along with the trolls and zealots, there are people who (1) don't bother to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (2) think anything they want to include can be added to a Wikipedia article, or (3) have axes to grind, and are constantly injecting their personal viewpoint or personal creations into the article. This article must comply by WP:NEUTRAL, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY; with its content supported by reliable sources.
I have my own opinions about what does or does not represent me as a lesbian or the lesbian community ... but as a Wikipedia editor I must leave my personal perspectives out of this article and abide by Wikipedia's standards. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit to labrys lesbian flag paragraph

Own source claims "The flag has made a little traction on the internet, but has never been widely recognized as one for the lesbian community." add this for context. The lack there of seems like possible marketing scheme. you editing this Sean?

• source: Bendix, Trish (September 8, 2015). "Why don't lesbians have a pride flag of our own?". AfterEllen. Archived from the original on September 9, 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2019.**

The Labrys flag is controversial due to its use of the black triangle. Acknowledge this controversy. Not doing so is disrespectful to the Romani people due to the Porajmos (Romani Genocide during WWII). Adding a link to the Romani Genocide article may also be valuable in furthering the articles educational effectivity. Below is an example of how this may sound. it is an excerpt from the black triangle (badge) Wikipedia page:

"Controversy over lesbian usage The use of the symbol as a sign of lesbian victimization has been challenged on the grounds that lesbian sex was not criminal under Paragraph 175 of the Nazi legislation on sexual behavior, and there is no record of the black triangle having been imposed on lesbians, or of lesbians as a group being confined to concentration camps. The archive of the memorial site of Ravensbrück has evidence of four women with an additional remark of being lesbians: two of them had been persecuted for political reasons, two for being Jewish. One of the Jewish inmates was given a black triangle due to sexual contacts with non-Jews.[7]

It is speculated that Playing for Time ('Sursis pour l'orchestre'), a holocaust memoir by Frenchwoman Fania Fénelon, is part of the reason behind the belief that the black triangle was placed on lesbians, as Fénelon's memoir includes lesbian themes and describes an evening of entertainment in the asocials' barracks as the "Black Triangles' Ball."

• Source: Claudia Schoppmann, Nationalsozialistische Sexualpolitik und weibliche Homosexualität (Dissertation, FU Berlin, 1990.), Centaurus, Pfaffenweiler, 1991 (revisited 2nd edition 1997). ISBN 3-89085-538-5**

Romani, political dissidents and others labeled as asocial with the black triangle were sent to concentration camps. However, Romani people were the only peoples labled with the black triangle that were targeted for execution (The Final Solution).

From the black triangle (badge) wikipedea page: "Those considered anti-social included primarily the Romani but it was also used until 1942 to describe alcoholics, homeless, beggars, nomads, and prostitutes."

• source: "System of triangles". Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.***

"Historians estimate that between 220,000 and 500,000 Romani were killed by the Germans and their collaborators—25% to over 50% of the estimate of slightly fewer than 1 million Roma in Europe at the time."

• source: "Holocaust Encyclopedia – Genocide of European Roma (Gypsies), 1939–1945". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). Retrieved 9 August 2011."**

"The Nazis did not systematically persecute lesbians. However, some lesbians were imprisoned in concentration camps as political prisoners, asocials, and as members of other groups."

• source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lesbians-under-the-nazi-regime" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choosegoose (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article text states:
"Women considered asocial by the Third Reich because they did not conform to the Nazi ideal of a woman, which included homosexual females, were condemned to concentration camps[7] and wore an inverted black triangle badge to identify them.[8]... lesbians were not included in Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code).[8]"
What specific information do you find in that sentence? "Asocial... which included homosexual females ... lesbians were not included in Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code."
This is from your Lesbians Under the Nazi Regime link:

"Based on archival sources, it is clear that some lesbians were arrested and sent to concentration camps. What were some of the reasons for their arrest and detention, especially considering sexual relations between women were not illegal under the Nazi regime? ... In 1940, the Gestapo detained and interrogated Smula and Rosenberg. The Gestapo did so based on denunciations from the women’s coworkers. The coworkers alleged that the two women had engaged in sexual relations with other women. The Gestapo claimed that these sexual relations had interfered with the women’s work duties at a Berlin tram station. Smula and Rosenberg were accused of subversion. They were then deported to the Ravensbrück concentration camp. There, the two women were registered as political prisoners. A notation of “lesbian” was written in their camp documentation. ... In the camps, women who self-identified or were identified as lesbians did not wear the pink triangle. Instead, they wore badges that corresponded to the official reason for their arrest and internment."

The article does not state anything that differs from history.
Any disputes about use of the black triangle belongs in the Black triangle (badge) article. When readers of this article go to the triangle article, they will find all the information about it there, including the Romani section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about "official"

In 2021, Tennessee-Virginia organization TriPride published a list of flags and declared the seven stripes orange-pink flag "as the official lesbian flag".

I'm curious why this is even listed here? It's unclear to me that TriPride has the ability to declare that something is (or isn't) "the official lesbian flag", any more or less than any other group. Thanks! CadeKobold (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Orange flag origin

While the source is a twitter conversation OP did provide time stamped proof that the orange-pink flag made in 2016 was saved on their computer, timestamped at 2016.

the emily gwen version is slightly less saturated. 2600:1700:7270:6890:D063:F7C9:94CC:F5CD (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Add a section about controversy?

Anyone familiar with the various lesbian flags will know about the controversies surrounding most of them. Here's a great article going into that in detail: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a30254147/lesbian-flag/ In short: The labrys flag is controversial as it has been created by a cis gay man, its use of the black triangle and its use by trans exclusionary radical feminists. The lipstick flag is controversial as it has been created by someone making racist, bi- and transphobic comments. Additionally all widely used lesbian flags (all those that are mentioned in this article) are seen as only representing femme lesbians.

I feel like all this controversy should definitely be mentioned here as it plays a huge part in lesbian symbolism. 80.145.16.100 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"The labrys flag is controversial as it has been created by a cis gay man, its use of the black triangle and its use by trans exclusionary radical feminists.": (1) Where are the reliable published sources that confirm the flag is controversial because of the biology and sexual orientation of its creator? (2) The black triangle badge was used by Nazis to identify women considered anti-social, and homosexual women were considered anti-social. What reliable published sources contradict that lesbians were not considered anti-social and never tagged with the black triangle badge? (3) Where are the reliable published sources that confirm that only trans exclusionary radical feminists use the labrys flag?
"has been created by someone making racist, bi- and transphobic comments": Can you link to who this "someone" is and also link to the "racist, bi- and transphobic comments" you allege have been made? Do not link to what someone else claims the person said. Wikipedia editors need to see the original 'from the horse's mouth' comments.
"all widely used lesbian flags (all those that are mentioned in this article) are seen as only representing femme lesbians.": Where are the reliable published sources that confirm this?
In Wikipedia, the citing of reliable published sources exclude Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, and any other user-generated sites. The Cosmopolitan article includes info from Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Twitter, and Instagram messages. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree. Even this very talk page agrees that the topic is controversial. To not include the controversies in the article itself is grossly incomplete and potentially misleading. I've added a "Controversies" section. PBZE (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Natalie McCray controversy

@Pyxis Solitary the Refinery29 source, already on the article, says (slide 4) "Some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because McCray's blog includes racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments". This is not an isolated personal opinion, otherwise the entire Controversies section is made by personal opinions and accusations. The Cosmopolitan source also points the fact labrys flag was designed by a cis man (a non-lesbian). This source (not on the article yet, in Spanish) also problematize that a bit more. — Tazuco 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

also ""Yahoo! Sports" not an RS for LGBT topics". where does it say that LGBT topics have to have their own reliable sources? — Tazuco 18:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

the sources are there, they say these things. if you don't want these informations to be there because you don't like it, then it's your personal stance. if you believe it's badly worded, just reorganize the sentence — Tazuco 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You are not the first editor who has tried to inject the slanderous allegations made against the designer of the lipstick flag into this article. Go up on this talk page and you will see my comment of 2 July 2020 about the same matter.
Accusations that begin in a personal blog and circulated on Tumblr and other social media does not become legitimate because poorly skilled writers who fail to investigate the truth publish it. In a 2018 Medium blog titled "A Lesbian Flag for Everyone", a blogger named "Lydia" (who wanted her own flag design to be accepted as a lesbian flag) accused McCray of being racist because of the comments she wrote about an Asian woman in a 2010 blog page titled "My Worst Date Ever". Lydia provided the link to this blog page so that others could see what McCray had written. Lydia then stated: "the creator also shows her biphobic and transphobic and colours all over her website. She even shows a distaste for and dismissing butches… though given the high femininity of her flag design, that was hardly a surprise." However, for these accusations she fails to provide links to whatever "biphobic and transphobic" comments were supposedly made by McCray. McCray published a response to the accusations made by Lydia. Lydia later deleted her Medium blog.
The accusations made by Lydia against McCray circulated on Tumblr and were repeated without anyone making an effort to investigate what about McCray was "biphobic and transphobic". These allegations were then unethically published in some recent articles about the lesbian flag. To date, no evidence has been provided by anyone that confirms what McCray has been accused of.
Per WP:LIBEL: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified."
As for Yahoo! Sports being used a source about lesbian flags ... as with most of the articles found in Yahoo!, the article is a reprint from another source. This particular one links to the 2019 Refinery29 article as the source of the material about McCray -- which itself is entirely based on the Medium blog by Lydia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Mayhaps it should be reworded to clarify these are accusations. also it's a section devoted to criticism. and as far as I searched, the biphobia and transphobia accusations are for McCray's tweets, now from a deleted Twitter account. and the screenshots are on Tumblr. so it could be deleted, however you agree the racism is at least a bit evidenced, right?

And I'm not the only one here putting sourced claims about McCray's bigotry.

Also, regarding this edit, do you think we can add sources from other languages? Such as this one (anti-paywall) — Tazuco 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are expected to be neutral in how they word their edits, particularly when accusations against an individual cannot be supported with the evidence of whatever an individual is being accused of (e.g. with a newspaper article that includes screenshots). When a source is an opinion and/or repetition of hearsay, and relies solely on what an accuser has said ... it is not a reliable source. Per WP:WEIGHT: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views....Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute....in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
The Tumblr blogs that you linked are not credible because they are Tumblr blogs and Wikipedia policy does not accept Tumblr as a source, nor other user-generated content.
The only evidence of what might be considered offensive comments by McCray is what she published about an Asian woman in her blog This Lesbian Life, and which I linked in my response above. However, the since-deleted Medium blog by "Lydia" that lit the fire against McCray cannot be used as a source because it is a personal blog (not a newspaper or magazine blog).
Regarding the revistagalileu.globo.com article: per WP:NONENG: "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance." What does this Brazilian article about flags have to say that has not been published in English-language sources? In fact, what I found in it is what I've found in English-language articles about LGBT+ flags (it even uses flag files from Wikipedia). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

But wordpress isn't reliable source either, right? Because the transphobia accusation source is also archived (although Lydia didn't linked, it's on the Tumblr post). WP:SPS says "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". The information was self-published, but it's also published in reliable sources.

If a source is regurgitating accusations based on opinions in a personal blog and Tumblr blogs — it's not a reputable source. It cannot be taken seriously. All it really is, is a gossip column. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyways, now that you reworded I think it's more neutral/impartial that way. — Tazuco 22:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"I'm not the only one here putting sourced claims about McCray's bigotry." All the sources that have been presented base their assertions on the Medium blog by "Lydia" and social media gossip. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And when I worded, I didn't accuse her of being anything, I stated that her comments were *bigoted* — Tazuco 19:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"I stated that her comments were *bigoted*." If you say someone's comments are "bigoted" ... you are accusing the person of being bigoted. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for rewording the sentence, it's better now. — Tazuco 22:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on your latest edit, I think you need to re-read WP:BLOGS, WP:NEWSBLOG, and WP:VENDOR. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed that. I also agree that a lot of the "controversies" material consists of poor sources repeating gossip. Why are we not relying on academic sources for this topic? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at RSN, which touches on issues that were raised in this discussion and affect content on the Lipstick Lesbian flag across this and several other articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

They/them lesbian flag

Hi! I am a nonbinary individual and I’m also lesbian, I’m wondering what the they/them lesbian flag is called? 104.59.47.53 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Research the web and/or your library to find reliable sources for the flag (if it exists). Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo fele. 13:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph of History section

There seems to be a problem with regards to the order of content in the history section, that makes the content confusing.

The first sentence states that the labrys flag was created in 1999 by a graphic designer. The second describes the details of that flag, that it contains a labrys superimposed on an inverted black triangle, set on a purple background. The third sentence gives some brief background on the history of the labrys symbol. So far, so good.

The fourth sentence is where things start to go wrong. It reads In the 1970s it was adopted as a symbol of empowerment by the lesbian feminist community., citing Zimmerman. While the Zimmerman source does have a paragraph on the labrys and its use as a lesbian symbol, the content relating to the adoption of a symbol in the 1970s is actually in reference to an inverted pink triangle. The adoption of the labrys as a lesbian symbol is undated in the Zimmerman source.

The fifth sentence then describes use of an inverted black triangle in Nazi concentration camps for asocial women, a category which included lesbians, citing an entry on remember.org which seems to be a republished version of a paper published in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1996. While that source does state that some lesbians have reclaimed the inverted black triangle as a symbol, which forms the basis of the sixth sentence, it doesn't state when that started to happen. It does however restate that the inverted pink triangle was reclaimed in the 1970s. Finally the seventh sentence states how the colour purple came to be associated with lesbians.

So questions:

• In the fourth sentence, what is the word "it" referring to? Is it the labrys, inverted black triangle, or inverted pink triangle?
  • If it's the use of the labrys, or the use of the inverted black triangle, then neither is supported by the Zimmerman source. Only the inverted pink triangle that has a definite date for its reclamation from any of the sources cited. However, if it's the labrys, then the use of the labrys as a lesbian symbol beginning in the 1970s could potentially be cited to citation 4, Murphy which weakly supports that assertion.
• If the "it" refers to the use of the inverted black triangle, then should the fifth and fourth sentences not be swapped in order? If we're describing the history of the inverted black triangle as a symbol, would we not better be stating the history first, and then how it was reclaimed?
• If the "it" refers to the inverted black triangle, then when was that symbol reclaimed for use by lesbians? Are there any sources that state a date or decade?
• While all of the proceeding sentences cover how the labrys flag came into existence, we don't actually have any content on its current day use or lack of use by the community. When comparing it to the subsequent paragraphs on the lipstick and pink flags, the lack of a sentence on its current status seems conspicuous. Are there any sources so that we could add a sentence on its modern usage, versus usage twenty four years ago?
• In the fourth paragraph, are there any sources we could use so that we could add a sentence on the adoption of the seven stripe and five stripe flags by the community?
• In the gallery there is a double Venus symbol flag variant, that according to the source had some use starting in 2009 and 2010. Are there any other sources on that flag, so that we could add a paragraph on it into the history section?

Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential sources we could use for contemporary usage of the labrys flag:

• The History and Meaning of the Lesbian Pride Flag is Nuanced and Ever-Evolving, Women's Health (magazine)
  • Note, cites two experts (Chelsea Del Rio, and Caroline Radesky) throughout, states that there was concerns over Holocaust imagery and co-option by "trans-exclusionary lesbians or trans-exclusionary feminists"
• What Exactly Is The Labrys Lesbian Pride Flag, and What Does It Mean?, Queer In The World
  • Note, while the About Us page states that it is a blog and online resource for gay and lesbian travellers, we cite it on 27 other articles, including other pride flag articles. States that it's not widely used due to concerns over the Holocause imagery, and co-option by trans-exclusionary lesbians and trans-exclusionary feminists.
• Lesbian flag: The history, origins, meaning and symbolism, Cosmopolitan
  • Note, has a brief mention of the Labrys flag being perceived as having been co-opted by TERFs, which corroborates the assertion in the later published Women's Health magazine article

I think these three sources would allow us to add a sentence on the lack of widespread contemporary usage of the labrys flag.

As for the double Venus symbol flag, while I find plenty of websites selling the flag and variants of it, and I can find information on the history of the history of the double Venus symbol, I've only been able to find one possibly unreliable source (Flagwix) that has any information on the double Venus flag variant. And even then, it's basically "no-one knows where this came from". I saw that this flag and its variants was discussed previously at Talk:LGBT symbols/Archive 2#Lesbian rainbow flag with double-Venus symbol, where there are some photos in sources of it in use at various events and protests, but no actual prose that describe it. I wonder if perhaps we should remove this flag from the gallery, because it just doesn't seen notable in reliable or unreliable sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LizzieB2327 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LizzieB2327 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)