I’d like to add that, at the end of his life, Baker was working on a revision to his original design, a nine-stripe flag adding the color lavender to represent the quality of “diversity”:

This design didn’t get much attention because Baker died, unexpectedly, shortly after he began promoting it in San Francisco. I haven’t been able to find whether Baker intended this design to replace his earlier one, or if it was intended to exist alongside his previous work as an alternate version (my guess would be the latter).

I like this design because it explicitly incorporates the concept of diversity via a stripe — even though the original design does this overall — without falling into the pitfalls of stripes being associated with specific identities. It also preserves the ability of the flag to function as a global symbol, not an ethnocentric one, as you astutely point out.

Like you, I have no problem if people want to create different variations of the flag to highlight particular identities or issues (Baker was fine with this as well, and did not trademark his design). But I do take issue when people argue for completely replacing one design with another. We see the same debates with language and terminology: should we replace “transsexual” with “transgender” because “transsexual” is outdated and offensive?; should “bisexual” be replaced with “pansexual” because “bi” reinforces the gender binary?; etc. What happens to those who strongly identify with the former symbol or term? Do they then feel excluded?

I don’t see the historical flag as inherently oppressive; rather, some have chosen to use this symbol in an oppressive or exclusionary fashion by defining the parameters of the community in a particular way. If anything, we should replace the 6-stripe flag with the original 8 stripes, because commercial production of hot pink fabric/nylon is no longer an issue, both as a way to honor Baker and to reference the flag’s history (i.e., that the design was intended to be inclusive and open ended). We also need to recognize that changing a flag design will not wholly address the systemic issues (racism, transphobia) the new designs highlight. These issues are paramount, but they go much deeper than amending a symbol.

Symbols are important, but we must get to the heart of the issues the symbols represent if we are to create meaningful change within and beyond the LGBTQ community. Our history is important, and we shouldn’t casually discard it. But we should also move forward with knowledge of who has, and continues to be, excluded.