Alexandrina

A statement like what? "We respect your right to exist and be yourself, no matter who you are"?

More significantly, this is a good example of the sort of strategy employed by certain types on social media (not that I'm ascribing this motivation to anyone here, but it definitely has a parallel outcome). A user says something hateful or extreme, draws a reaction - and then later on someone comes along and portrays the original comment as reasonable and thoughtful. It's often left unsaid but the implication here is that the poor person who made the frustrated response is being unreasonable. It's an insidious tactic which hateful media outlets have perfected and I sincerely hope isn't going to be put into use here on EB.

That may be so, but it's still not a reason for Lego to avoid doing something good just to appease ignorance. For Lego to actively not produce a set on something that they rightly consider not to be political, purely because they worry some people will see it as political, is cowering away in the face of bigotry. With all due respect, a comment that begins by calling a decent subset of the population immoral (by extension, by defining their orientation as sexual immorality) and then proceeds into a sermon that also denies the identity of another subset of the population (my womanhood is not a rebellion against any creator, but rather a fact of my being) is hardly a thoughtful choice of words.

But if that's the case, why does it matter what some people think the flag means? It's not a political symbol, Lego don't see it as a political symbol, so if someone is uninformed and thinks it is political that's on them for not understanding. Let's face it, the usual suspects will crow about any symbol representing LGBTQ+ people being political - so the perceptions of the uninformed should not need to be taken into consideration. If anything it's a learning moment. Somebody with a good heart but no knowledge on the subject might say "that's political" then do some research and realise that no, it's not political - it's just basic human decency for people who have done nothing wrong. And that's a good thing.

That's a very disingenuous point. There's no official LGBTQ+ organisation pushing policies and organising rallies. People go to rallies and bring the flag, just like people might bring a national flag to a rally - but that doesn't mean the flag represents their politics. In any case, I don't think subtle representation alone is enough. I have gone through the horrible adolescence unsure of who I am, what it is to be trans, if I'm even allowed to be trans - and I know how much better off I would be now if there had been signals from the world that its okay to be who I am. I also grew up not able to afford a huge amount of Lego (though I had more than some). I would get maybe five or six sets a year, rarely more than £20 and never more than £50. It meant I didn't see the small details in most sets. Sure, I read the catalogues so I knew what sets existed, but that's it. What subtle representation (a photo frame with a same-sex couple, for instance) would achieve is to restrict the representation to those lucky enough to have the set in question. Overt representation is seen by every young Lego fan who is unsure of who they are and where they fit in the world, and it tells them that they're okay. They count. Just like everybody else.

I am trans, and tbh rainbow and trans flags are the only way I can think of without either creating a full narrative or resorting to crass and offensive stereotypes. But that's the thing. Maybe you specifically weren't, but it's clear that a large chunk of people are using the excuse that this is 'political' to decry a set representing LGBTQ+ people. As I have previously said, there was no outcry about the inclusion of wheelchair bound or hearing impaired minifigures - it's only when LGBTQ+ representation comes up that people start complaining about it being political. This isn't exclusive to Lego. Any time you see an LGBTQ+ character or actor, there will be accusations that it's political. When Doctor Who had a lesbian companion who dared to mention her girlfriend once, the Internet was up in arms, despite not having batting an eyelid when heterosexual relationships were mentioned. Honestly at this point it's a tired argument used often as a crutch by people who want to shoot down any notion of LGBTQ+ representation without directly saying it. In any case, there's been at least on comment here saying that they don't approve of Lego condoning "sexual immorality". That sounds a lot like being opposed to LGBTQ+ representation to me.

The abbreviation has been around since at least the 70s. I'm not aware of anyone actually saying 'Xmas' other than the voice cast of Futurama. But objecting to LGBTQ+ representation (and only that, since there's been no uproar about increasing say female representation in sets) comes across as saying LGBTQ+ people aren't allowed this representation. That then begs the question: how do you represent trans people? If using the colours of the flag is too political, I don't see how it can be done. Are we not allowed to have good representation at all, lest it offend pearl clutchers who don't want to see a rainbow?

I wouldn't say I feel the need for "overt representation". Any representation is good imo, but this is the set that we're getting. My being pleased by this set doesn't mean I wouldn't have also been satisfied with subtle representation (though I would suggest that trans representation would be difficult to do without either resorting to gross stereotypes or using a flag/emblem). I would also argue that someone unfamiliar with the rainbow flag isn't going to make the connection anyway. Rainbows as iconography have many other uses - for instance, they have been frequently used as a symbol of support for the NHS in the UK in the past year. That I couldn't say. The vintage flags were very much Europe oriented, with only a handful of other countries (America, Australia) while the early 2000s stickers were associated with the 2002 World Cup I believe. That said, China actually qualified for the 2002 World Cup (their only appearance) so not sure necessarily why they weren't included. However my guess is that Lego opted for a handful of common colour schemes and added flags of appropriate nations rather than seeking to represent everybody at the World Cup. Australia, Nigeria and Tunisia all qualified in 2002 and didn't get their flags included. As China was neither a major target market at the time nor a footballing powerhouse, its possible Lego ignored them to focus on markets more likely to buy football products.

Off the top of my head, there were sticker sheets for England, Finland, Holland, Scotland and Sweden in 3405, as well as others such as Brazil, USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Russia, Czechia, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Wales, Switzerland, Mexico, France, Argentina, Italy, Korea and Japan in the various colour variants of the same set. They've also released the UK flag in 2011, the US flag in 2003, flags on flagpoles with the flag of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, GB, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. I disagree that you can define something as gaslighting just because it's arguing against a point. Gaslighting has a specific meaning. In any case, that debate isn't on-topic so I won't go into it any further. If that's so, then surely LGBTQ+ representation should be met in the same way as representation for differently-abled people, or representation for women, or any other minority group. Yet I've never seen people argue that Lego should only produce male minifigures, since women as a group don't have the right to be represented. It's only an argument that seems to rear its head when we're talking about LGBTQ+ people - and you'll forgive me therefore for feeling as though it's less about perceived political neutrality and more about a dislike for LGBTQ+ representation. In any case, as you say the manufacturer may choose to represent certain groups. That's Lego's prerogative, and they have duly done so. It doesn't make it a political issue.

I don't see how that's the case. LGBTQ+ people's existence is not political, our rights to be represented in Lego are not political. Yes, this set is based on a flag - but the flag is just a representation of a group. National flags are also representations of a group of people, yet those flags have been associated with political issues. It doesn't mean that a set including those flags is inherently political - and indeed, Lego have included national flags on several occasions. In any case, Lego are neither gaslighting or strawmanning. At no point do they deny their policy exists. And they don't mention families and children as a non sequitur, but rather as the crux of their reply.

That statement is on point! So happy that Lego are saying these things, and my love for them only grows.

Go for it

I wonder how many people, even nowadays, don't mention that they're LGBTQ online just to avoid the hate. I know I barely if at all mentioned that I'm trans on EB until recently - as a conscious decision - because I couldn't tell what sort of community it was, and once you reveal your identity you can't unreveal it. Fortunately this has turned out to be a great place - but the fact that it's even a point of consideration shows that there's still a way to go.

Thanks for tagging me in this! It's genuinely an interesting thing for me to see - and tbh I would probably buy such sets for the parts alone (ancient history minifigures? Yes please!)

Oh okay. Never seen it (for reasons which are way off-topic) but I guess that makes sense.

On an untapped note of discussion, the name of the set feels not in keeping with Lego's naming conventions. I can't put my finger on why, but does anyone have insight as to why the set is called Everyone is Awesome rather than a more boring and lego-esque Monofigures Rainbow or Bricks in Colour or something??

Thanks for those! Can't say I'm familiar with them (generally speaking, other than a few references I didn't realise were religious) but it's not my market so that's to be expected

Other than the Nativity (and Jesus on the cross, which would be a patently unlikely set for the grimness of its content) are there any sufficiently iconic moments for them to turn into a set anyway? I ask as someone who has never read the bible, and whose only exposure is through the cultural hegemony in her home country - I'm not aware of any other iconic scenes.

It definitely had some bright sparks. I remember the council of seasonal characters being amusing, and enjoying the notion of pretending to the in-laws that this totally isn't the North Pole, no sirree!

I can I suppose see why someone might feel an inconsistency and have it rankle. That said, putting aside the fact that I'm naturally defensive on these issues anyway as they have deep personal significance and I've had my fair share of attacks for simply being who I am, I haven't seen many comments from people arguing against these sets that have really elucidated why they're opposed to it. (And I'm not aiming this particular remark at you). For my mind, there's two things at play. First, there's a difference in what people see as being too political. Personally I think it's plain to see how LGBTQ+ representation isn't even in the same universe as Nazis, but there is a line in the sand that Lego won't cross, and I can fully respect that people might have different views on where that line is. But secondly, there's a difference between those who are opposed to the set because they see it as crossing the political line in the sand and those who are opposed to it specifically because it's an LGBTQ+ positive set. As you say, this is a public forum and better than a lot of what I've seen on Facebook/Reddit etc. These public forums naturally bring out all sorts of opposing viewpoints - including the unfortunately too-prevalent hate mobs. When this set's discussions have become a lightning rod for comments arguing that an entire demographic who are just living their lives are immoral, or that Lego is disgusting for daring to acknowledge their existence, anybody who has valid complaints should take the time to elaborate on those complaints rather than adding to the chorus of hate - even if their own comment isn't coming from a place of hate, it doesn't feel that way when it's part of a tide of identical comments. I couldn't have put this better myself. Having been the kid who doesn't know that she's trans or even that trans people exist, it's a lonely and confusing world sometimes. Even the little things are a great way of saying "you're not alone". And it's not just kids' media that's at the start of a shift for the better/more representative. I've spent the last eight years writing a book which happens to have a trans protagonist, and when I started out there was just about nothing on the market that I could use as a reference point for good representation - and at the time I wasn't secure enough in my own identity for my personal experience to be a solid starting point. Compare that to now, and while there's still a long way to go, representation is out there and can be found. It starts with the kids. Increased support and awareness - which sets like this will contribute towards - allow LGBTQ+ kids to feel better about themselves at a younger age, and also allow their peers to learn too/foster a supportive environment. The Easter Bunny is indelibly tied to Easter. Easter is a profoundly Christian holiday - the very fact that it's celebrated in sets is a nod to the Christian heritage of Western countries, even if the sets themselves might not be explicitly religious in content.

Honestly I don't see any issue with that. It would actually be an opportunity for good minifigure parts too, so all the more in favour. :)

There's also been part 95225 in magenta, among others. Not a HUGE range, but definitely a couple.

I'm not so sure that's as cynical is being down to money. Most if not all of the colours have already been released in the relevant parts - and in most cases, multiple times. That there's only two arches per colour is probably more a product of that being how many are needed for the model. After all, it's not like there's only one 2466p68 in the 6833 Beacon Tracer so consumers would buy loads of the set. That's just what the model needs. I promise I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, but I'm genuinely having trouble understanding the mindset of someone who complains about this set. Obviously not everybody has to want/be enamoured with it, but if someone simply doesn't want it because it doesn't interest them, do they need to comment on it? As an example here, I'm not a Technic fan so Technic sets aren't aimed at me and don't appeal to me. Doesn't mean I go into the Technic thread when a new set is revealed to say that I don't want to see that set. And if someone doesn't want to see this set because it's supportive of the LGBTQ+ community and they don't agree with that... does that not make them a bigot?

If Lego were to release a set I wasn't a fan of, I would just not talk about that set - because clearly such a set wasn't made for me, and my decrying it would have no benefit. That goes double for sets which are celebrating individual qualities which don't really invite room for disagreement. Half of the current Lego range is stuff I'm not a fan of. I stay out of discussions about those sets, and instead keep to talking about the sets I do like. And that's 100% a good thing. Nobody should ever be in a position where they have to hide a fundamental part of who they are just to avoid bigotry.

Not that I'm really sure what Lego could do to make such figures, in a run of the mill City set - but I have never heard of any, other than obviously the few licensed characters who are LGBTQ+ according to the source material