Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ontology

This sentence is very strange: "There are also some lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender people as well as ontologists who are against an "LGBT community" or "LGB community"." What does the philosophical question of the nature of what there is (ontology) have to do with questions of how to refer to homosexuals? You should either explain this or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.78.110 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pansexual a weasel-word to avoid saying bisexual

I contend that the influence of biphobia is such that the word pansexuality (a true sexual orientation) is employed as a catch-all to get around having to self-identify as bisexual, an identity still popularly characterised as indecisive, unfaithful and untrustworthy. Nuttyskin 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and also think it is good that on the main page it points out that the term 'bisexuality' is problematic as it enforces the concept of there only being two genders.

Bethgranter 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Bisexual" attraction is still widely used to for love within the male/female binary, usually, whereas as pansexuals can be attracted to/in love with the whole variety of people who do not fit into that binary. But that is only the usage-based meaning of the term I know. Maybe there are people who swap terms because they are surrounded by biphobics, who knows. It is strange to assume, however, that all peopel who identify as "pansexual" are automatically victims of biphobia.--80.171.77.169 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. People are much more willing to say for example that Jack Harkness is "omnisexual" because I think the British public would rather rationalise it as an alien sci-fi concept then comprehend actual bisexuality.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that one of the reasons that he is referred to as "omnisexual" is because he is attracted to males, females, humans, and non-human aliens. It's more than just a male/female issue, but also a human/alien issue. That is "an alien sci-fi concept" and should be referred to differently than real-life bisexuality, I think. --98.240.180.91 (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the character of Jack Harkness is omnisexual. Personally, I would never think of identifying as 'bisexual' because to me it's as inaccurate as 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. You're not attracted to a sex per se, but specific people (I hope!). It's silly to have to reinvent your sexual identity if you find yourself getting involved with someone whose pants contain bits contradictory to your sexual identity. 'Pansexual' is less silly in this way, though simple 'sexual' is IMO infinitely more sensible... it may not be greatly enlightening, but it is not misleading (endarkening) or oversimplifying. That's why I find it a more comfortable label than 'bisexual'. ---115.166.19.130 (talk)

In what way is "heterosexuality" inaccurate? I am a male and I'm exclusively attracted to females. I'm not attracted to all females but I certainly would never be attracted to a man.--Jordan10la (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

“Pan means all.” So does “omni.” Pansexual means all-sexual. look it up in a dictionary. It seems clear that the Wikipedia "pansexuality" page has been taken over by people with an agenda, one to pretend that the two sexes or genders covers all sexual preferences, but of course that's absurd. Necrophilia, pedophilia, and beastiality are all sexual preferences too that would seem to clearly covered under the rubric of "pansexuality" or "all-sexuality," and there are many other forms of parasexualities such as fetishes. I'm not saying that all bisexuals are into any of those disgusting things . . . I am saying that bisexual does not equal pansexual because pansexuality by its very meaning covers much more than merely the two genders or sexes and somehow expanding those two genders or sexes into some spectrum would still simply not cover every form of human sexuality. Thus the entire page as it stands is stubbornly and blindly biased and tendentious to the point of absurdity. as well, i don't see how pansexual is somehow a better fig-leaf word for bisexual. i might very well allow someone i thought truly bisexual to baby-sit my child, but i could never do that with someone i truly thought "pansexual." -Unsigned

That's a bisexual with a fetish. Pedophiles and zoophiles are something altogether different from gays and bisexuals, as far as I see it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some pedophiles and zoophiles have the same behabior as the other more know sexual orientations (some do have a fetish but is easy to see the difference) studies have show that there is a zoosexuals and pedosexual orientations.
Alusky (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I identify as pansexual and don't see what the big issue is. Bisexual implies two things that aren't true of me - a) that the gender of the people I'm attracted to is key in my sexual identity and b) that there are two genders. It's not a cop-out. It's just inaccurate for me. I can be attracted to transgendered people, and I don't see why that means I can't baby-sit someone's child as was suggested. I thought we were above this idea that someone having different sexual politics = a slippery slope into pedophilia, which has been a common argument used against gay men. Saying that pansexuals are more likely to be pedophiles just because "pan" does not mean "excluding children" is like saying that teachers are more likely to be murderers just because "teach" does not mean "excluding murdering". I mean honestly, are you kidding me? "Everything" refers to "every gender", not "everything that has an orifice"...just like "bi" refers to "both genders", not "both humans and animals" or "both living humans and dead humans" or "both children and adults" whatever other absurd interpretation. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want to have the right to self-identify your sexuality, you have to extend that to the rest of us. Even if we choose a designation that you don't like. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two genders, which is evident because the main difference between the genders is anatomic and physiological: one's got those genitals, organs and hormones and whatnot, the other one has other such. Homo-, hetero- and bisexuality defines if one is able to be attracted to person of only one of these genders and in that case which one, or if the person i able to be attracted to both. What gender the person then feel it is, is irrelevant, it's the anatomic difference that matters. Paraphilia on the other hand is a completely separate matter and don't even factor into the homo/hetero/bisexual definition, as paraphiliae are independent of one's sexuality. Nederbörd (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten Hermaphrodites that are in actual fact not one or the other but a mixture of both and then the trans people who chose to stay in between, being on or the other. So by definition bisexuals would only be attracted to men and women where pansexuals would also be attracted to those in-between. (Rights21) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rights21 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not conflate sex with gender. If you mean sex, say sex. Anyway, it is not true that there are two sexes. Intersex people show the falsity of that preposition. The way in which you use 'paraphilia' is also grossly inaccurate (see Paraphilia). Given those, I suspect you should reformulate your argument. --115.166.19.130 (talk)

Re: "I agree, and also think it is good that on the main page it points out that the term 'bisexuality' is problematic as it enforces the concept of there only being two genders."

Gender is properly a grammatical term only. In English there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Sex is a biological term. In humans there are two sexes: male and female. (In rare cases, some persons may have simultaneously certain male and female characteristics. These persons are anomalous.) Although, males will normally be sexually attracted to females (qualify to taste) and females will normally be sexually attracted to males, sexuality in the sense of sexual attraction is different from sex. Sex is physiological.

In refrence to the above statments, whats normal is only the opinion of the masses and not actually true fact. Taking this into acount, you cannot state that males or females will normally be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, as the only reason for this is because humans have been doing it so long and has been set as a standard. We can't forget that not even 500 years ago in the middle ages, it was considered normal for royalty to sleep with whomever they pleased, man or woman. Going back even further to ancient greece, it was all too common to sleep men just as one would women, even little boys slept with full grown men, and it was never seen as being wrong. So, in the sence of whats right and wrong with sexuality, it all depends on what is socialy accepted, most easily seen by the growing acceptance in just the past 25 years within the gay community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.35.178 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that sexuality in humans is stronger than its particular focus, which is the mechanism that allows for sexual fixation, otherwise known as erotic love or mating. The generalization of this mechanism is also that which, wholly as a side effect, allows for homosexuality (otherwise evolutionarily untenable) and all sorts of possible fetishes, which we should be wasting our time attempting particularly to classify and name.

What is pansexuality then? Anything or nothing. TheScotch (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If Gender is properly a grammatical term only, Gender (disambiguation) wouldn't exist. Nor would over 170 articles with the word gender in the title. Escapepea (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pansexual indeed stands for all sexes and sexual preferences, although I would hope they stick to humans. I am indeed pansexual, and my deffinition is that sex and gender identity do not play a roll in any romantic attraction of mine. That is, I can be attracted to males, females, and transexuals. If my partner told me they wanted a sex change, I'd be 100% behind them. I'm just in it for the love, maaan. PS, I've known I am pansexual since the begining of highschool, and unlike a lot of bisexuals, it isnt a phase. Or a fetish, for that matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.141.131 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it has to be, as there are only two sexes. There are a lot of sick people out there.... JohnC (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Technically not true, hermaphroditism does occur sometimes. But it's more about gender identity really. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mattbuck, even with intersex individuals, they are still categorized by chromosomal makeup, or that combined with some other form of biology, as male or female. There's male and female, and then a combination of the two. But, like I said, even with the combination, a person is still usually designated as male or female. There are few cases where a person's biological sex is so ambiguous that they never end up being categorized as either sex. But then again, like you said, it's more about gender identity. Most intersex individuals identify as a man or as a woman. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As a pansexual man myself, I've never been so glad that Wikipedia isn't dictated by personal opinion, but backed up by evidence and factual study. Some of the comments above are just abhorrant. Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Pansexual is nothing but another synonym or weasel-word for being bisexual as people who are bisexual are also attracted to people who are trans, etc. so the article should just be merged with bisexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.201.59 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible Pansexual symbol

Since I haven't find any specific symbol for Pansexuality, I came out with one I created myself. This is the symbol alone:

It is derivated from the traditional symbols of male and female, combined together, and by the letter P, which can stand for Pansexual and/or Pride. I tried to be as accurate as possible in measurement and such, and it was quite an impegnative work since I used Paint. What do you think about it? Rosemarius 13:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good symbol. However, I also think the "Romance, attraction, and preferences" section of this main article is full of irrelevancies and poor writing, including a particularly obvious sentence fragment. I'm inclined to recommend removing or replacing the section in its entirety. The text on conditional homosexuality reserved for a specific individual, while being worthy of commentary, does not belong in an article on Pansexuality, which, as described above, is more about making decisions on romance and sex with complete disregard to the biological and sociological sex or sexuality of one's suitors. -Fathom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.137.87 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, aren't we here to document the phenomenon as opposed to being actors in its construction? How would we react, if editors over at Pedophilia decided to form their own pride symbol? Lambton ^T/_C 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"With all due respect"? Didn't you just compare pansexuals/omnisexuals to pedophiles? How is that respectful?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Since I haven't find any specific symbol for Pansexuality, I came out with one I created myself.":

Three letters: POV. TheScotch (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible symbol and flag

livejournal.com post and talk about the symbol, livejournal.com post and talk about the flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.186.253 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 212.242.186.253 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible sections

Based on stale discussions or remarks that were archived it may make sense to have sections specifically addressing terminology in respects to Pansexual vs. Bisexual (expanding on infor presented in lede), Pansexual vs. queer and Pansexual vs other possible terms that are cause of confusion. Benjiboi 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

The first sentence of the second paragraph ends with the phrase "regardless of either parties gender." That should be "regardless of either party's gender."

Taken care of. Next time you see a grammar problem in a Wikipedia article, feel free to correct it without querying about it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Consenting adults

I say pansexuals live with the belief of consentual sex between adults. As this sex is consentual between adults; beastiality, necrophillia, child sex or any other disgusting acts should not be an issue. Love, sex and affection are very personal things and can be related to all genders, sexes and all other consenting adults. You should not be judged as immoral by society for your actions if you do not physically or emotionally hurt anybody and if you are hurt as a result of these actions it is by choice. Bi-sexual is a term that cannot be used to describe Pansexuals because it is not a true description of sexual preferences as there are more than two genders. Dropthepilot (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be defensive: no-one is accusing pansexuals of being interested or involved in any of these, as you rightly say, disgusting things. But the point is, in a strict definition of the word, a true pansexual would be. So the word pansexual is clearly just as inaccurate of the facts as the word bisexual is - and the word is bisexual, there's no hyphen.

Speaking as a bisexual myself, and someone who has had sexual and romantic attachments to people who fall outside the two-gender equation, I would say that most bisexuals, given half a chance and of course depending entirely on the individual's own taste, would find trans people just as attractive as other people. Indeed, as many trans people are themselves bisexual, and attracted to other trans people, bi or otherwise, it rather makes a nonsense of what bi people are negatively defined as being.

Nuttyskin (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... many trans people identify within the gender binary and would be offended at your attempt to third-gender them here. 174.30.239.86 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I say pansexuals live with the belief of consentual sex between adults." Thats is your persona belief Dropthepilot I'm sure a minority of pansexuals don't believe that. "People shouldn't be judged as immoral if you do not physically or emotionally hurt anybody" Well, bestiality can be done without hurting anyone and legal consent is irrelevant when is about non-human animals as they are not human. And necrophilia can also be done without hurting anyone and legal consent can be given by the disease when he was alive or by the owners of the death body. So maybe you shouldn't be so close minded to judge others.

Alusky (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alusky, "judging others" is not "close minded." refusing to ever do so is either lazy, craven or close minded. i think that you don't know what "close minded" means. you think it means right-thinking, but closed minded means that you aren't open to evidence that might cause you to change your mind about something. 76.19.63.222 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Christian

Significant recent changes

I've made some drastic changes to this article. Undo, revert, and edit as you wish. The main changes I've made are eliminating redundant sentences, reordering sentences more logically, adding links, wikifying the language, and restructuring the sections as per Benjiboi's recommendation. Having done all this, I have a question: What was with the anthrosexual note? I don't see why we had a distinction note at the top saying pansexuality is not to be confused with anthrosexuality, but no further explanation of that in the article. The anthrosexuality article itself is a mess and marked for possible deletion, and has no cited or comprehensible reason for being distinct from pansexuality, so I've removed the distinction note. Anyway, I don't see why anthrosexuality warrants that note and not something like bisexuality, which is far more often confused with pansexuality. Does anyone have an opinion on this? --99.231.118.172 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Other meaning

I know people who refer to themselves as pansexual meaning attraction to everything meaning things not even alive and not sex toys either --71.131.30.178 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does this idea that the 'all' part of pansexual only refers to 'everything human' come from? This strikes me as an unreasonable attempt to morally sanitize the term. I identify as pansexual as well as know relatively many others that do, and this is definitely not how we use it. Insofar as a consensus exists it seems to be that pansexual specifically implies an attraction to things not either 'human male' or 'human female'; both cases where this is because they're neither male nor female and ones where this is because they're not human are understood to be included. I suggest that the line about not confusing pansexuality with anthrosexuality be re-added. Another distinction that would be good to make is one signifying the difference between a sexual orientation that includes something non HumanMale/HumanFemale, and one that includes everything, period. Rahsa (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the term actually just referred to 'all genders', being everything in between male and female, and anything else? I'll happily concede that I could easily be wrong, I haven't read THAT much on it, but from what I did, I thought it was directly just a theoretical attraction to any human no matter what they identify as.. -- Scar † Contributions † 20:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience as well, pansexuality means being attracted to people of all genders (in contrast with bisexuality, "both genders"; homosexuality, "same gender"; heterosexuality, "different gender"...). --Alynna (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well i guess a lot of people missidentify themselves then --71.131.30.178 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts or explanation for this? --00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.30.178 (talk)

Yeah, is there a term for those attracted to not exclusively people, i.e. maybe like colors, feelings, etc..? I don't know how to explain it, really...76.192.3.3 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Omnisexuals, or individuals engaging in paraphilia. 74.243.242.92 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more thinking along the lines of say tangibles 71.131.30.178 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The pornstar John Holmes, asked whether he self-identified as heterosexual, homosexual or what, replied that he considered himself sexual.

Nuttyskin (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sapiosexuality

It appears that the article for sapiosexuality has been removed, but sapiosexual still redirects to pansexuality. I would argue that that's wrong; if there's no article for sapiosexuality there shouldn't be an entry for sapiosexual, and besides, sapiosexuality is not enough like pansexuality to have a redirect. Thoughts? Thibgc (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article sapiosexuality deleted - is it too rare to be notable? I believe it is sexual orientation toward intelligence, but are some 'sapios' hetero, some homo - or are they all bi? F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be at least a sentence in this article about sapiosexuality - what it is, how it differs/not from pansexuality. --Alynna (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sapiosexuality is, I believe, a sexual preference; in other words, sapiosexuals find intelligence (or vast amounts of knowledge, at times) to be attractive and a turn on.132.203.26.102 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is mundane, but I have encountered the term used frequently on online dating sites (yes, poor, poor, pitiful me) and. at least in LA,</ref> it appears to be used more often than not by dubious profiles that want to chat - a lot. [me]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:859a:6c00:b86f:45bc:e8b6:ccee (talk • contribs)

Omni versus pan

Are these in all cases of the same meaning? I was reading something on a forum which said the following that confused me. " Some people think of these terms as synonymous, others differentiate them somewhat. Pansexual refers to individuals that experience sexual attraction or are willing to engage in sexual relations with humans regardless of their gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. When the terms are differentiated, omnisexual is expanded to refer to individuals that either experience sexual attraction to a large variety of things or are willing to engage in sexual behavior with people or things even if they experience little to no sexual attraction. Put simply, it refers to people with a "down for whatever" attitude that put very few limits on sexual expression.". Has anyone else encountered differentiation? Would it be worth noting on this page? Tyciol (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In my reading, "omnisexual" refers to sexual desire for potentially all things: other humans (pansexuality), one's self (masturbation), objects (pin-up girls, sex toys, fetishism), dead people (necrophilia), young children (pedophilia), animals (zoophilia) and (in science fiction) extraterrestrials. I think this should have a separate article, if someone can find any second-source material. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that might be what omnisexual means, but not necessarily how it is used: when Calvin Klein described himself as omnisexual, do you really think he wanted people to imagine he was a necrophiliac paedophile into aliens? No, he was using it as a euphemism - to shy away from admitting his own same-sex attractions.

Nuttyskin (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pansexualism as an ideology

The article should not limit itself to talking about pansexuality, but should also mention what has been called the ideology of pansexualism. It is a type of social and political philosophy which reduces everything to gender, and which attempts to explain all of human existence through the various forms of sexual interaction. It is in in many way similar to Spinoza's pantheism, except in talks about human reproduction instead of the scientific and theoretical naturalism. ADM (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please present any reliable sources to support that POV. -- Banjeboi 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one, the Merriam-Webster dictionary. [1] ADM (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to support a sentence in Sexualism with a link from here. Anything else? -- Banjeboi 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few more links here. [2] [3] [4] [5] The term apparently originates out of an academic criticism of Freud's theory of psychosexual development. ADM (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but those sources seem dreadful. -- Banjeboi 05:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the fundamental underlying principles of any ideology is a drive towards social change. The scale of that change is irrelevant. Pansexualism as an ideology therefore could exist merely as the desire for one human grouping requiring acknowledgement from the parent group. As such, "parent Group" can be defined as any group larger than those who adhere to the ideology, such as a family, or a community or society. The political aspirations of those who adhere to pansexualism as an ideology would therefore include a wider acceptance of their sexuality and the introduction of key terminology within common use of their parent language. PSD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.132.163 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Polysexuality merging

As I see, the article about polysexuality is more like another terminology and/or minor technicism that describes the same form of sexual orientation as pansexuality with no major diferences that worths a separate article (and it´s a stub), and thus, I believe is best to merge it into this article as another section of it. - Woglinde 02 (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that "pansexual" means "potentially attracted to people of all genders", while "polysexual" means "potentially attracted to people of multiple (but not necessarily all) genders". In practice, a lot of people who identify as pansexual could be described as polysexual. They are closely related and both short articles, so I'm neutral on merging. --Alynna (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against merging in this case. It is a distinct word with a meaning which is etymologically non-synonymous. If it's merged with "Pansexual", I think it's not going to show-up readily in internet searches. For example, if I type "define:polysexual" into Google, I imagine it wouldn't give me a definition any more if "polysexual" were not a head word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.159.86 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm against. Poly- means many, and term polysexual can easily be interpered as polygamy. While term pansexual is more NEUTRAL meaning/sounding term. Merging these two together will bring the confusion. In addition, polysexual can stand on its own, as a separate term to describe those, who are polygamic, regardless of sex identity.65.7.184.123 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger?

How about we merge both pansexuality and polysexuality into separate sub-sections of a section under bisexuality... Maybe the title of the section could be something like "Bisexuality versus pansexuality and polysexuality"...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.107.71 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? If people wish to define their lives/ lifestyles in some way by defining their sexuality in whichever manner they choose then so be it. That is a choice made by each and every individual who believes strongly enough that their sexuality is important to their notion of self and therefore needs definition. Your suggested title expresses the belief that one form of sexuality is or could be superior to another, which is a dangerous path to take regardless of social issue. PSD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.132.163 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Pansexuality is a distinct concept from bisexuality, and is notable enough for its own article. --Alynna (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. While pansexuality does overlap with bisexuality, I do feel that it is distinct enough for its own article. Plenty of people who indentify as bisexual would not define themselves in the way that pansexuals do. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose IMO, Notable distinction to warrant stand-alone articles for "Pansexuality" and "Polysexuality". Arjun^codename024 09:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Very Strongly Oppose. I identify as pansexual, and the last thing we need is bisexuality becoming a blanket term. The latter, ironically enough, under discussion for merger. 74.243.242.92 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Pansexuality is not bisexuality. Pansexuality is a separate entry in the dictionary from bisexuality and other sexualities. Your comment is baffling and strange. Greentyper (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose though I can guess where you're coming from. Pansexuality may be considered as "pseudo-bisexuality" (as though there was such a thing!) but it shouldn't be merged with it. Would you also wish for the Tiger article to be merged with the Lion article? :) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 00:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

There aren't any references on this page that support the given definition. Even the dictionary linked defines "pansexuality" or "omnisexuality" as a psychological theory stating that all human behavior is based on sex. Does this "pansexual" thing actually exist? Is there any research or science or even just a professional journalistic article (i.e., not a blog) supporting it? 174.16.146.133 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the scientific research but... being pansexual, I'm pretty sure it exists... 24.45.154.112 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying "Well, being a Christian, I'm pretty sure god exists." You've not provided any reasoning behind your stance at all; just simply said, "I believe it, so there's no reason to question it." Until some objective proof of "pansexuality" being a valid and necessary term surfaces, you're going to have to reason your way downward. I'd argue that, given the broad potential of the term "bisexual," you would in all likelihood be better defined by another existing term. 174.16.146.133 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

►I came up with this after thinking for a while:
Pansexuality it is just a subdivision of bisexuality, bisexuality can be divided like this:
•Bisexual: Attracted to both male and female humans as long the genitals match their gender.
•Bisexual-Androsexual: Only Attracted to masculine: males and female humans, dislikes feminine humans.
•Bisexual-Gynosexual: Only Attracted to feminine: male and female humans, dislikes masculine humans.
•Bisexual-Pansexual: Attracted to both masculine and feminine: male and female humans.
•Bisexual-androsexual (minus male-gynosexual) Attracted to masculine males and female humans and feminine female humans: but dislikes feminine male humans.
•Bisexual-androsexual (minus female-gynosexual) Attracted to masculine males and female humans and feminine male humans: but dislikes feminine female humans.
•Bisexual-gynosexual(minus female-androsexual) Attracted to feminine males and female humans and masculine male humans: but dislikes masculine female humans.
•Bisexual-gynosexual(minus male-androsexual) Attracted to feminine males and female humans and masculine female humans: but dislikes masculine male humans.
So all in all pansexuals are bisexuals, just that they are a different kind of bisexuals.
By the way, the same subdivisions exist with homosexuals and heterosexual, I actually know gays that are "homosexual-androsexual" as they only like gays that act masculine and totally hate feminine gays. So yea pansexuality does exist (we don't need a sexologist to provide evidence as you can get it by asking to bisexuals what gender they like or dislike) on the other hand, it would be needed to mention the other gender subdivisions of heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality, because why only mention the pansexual subdivision and ignore the others? Or maybe the word pansexual and pansexuality should be redirected to a new page and name that page something like: "Gender Based Sexual Orientation" and there it could be mentioned how heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality have different subdivisions depending of the gender of the human (and mention one of the subdivisions is pansexuality).
Alusky (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the article reflects. Please make this explicit within the article, and cite sources. Thanks. 67.172.133.32 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

can you fix references? Diamond & Butterworth & answerbag.com

For the Diamond & Butterworth citation, does anyone have adequate bibliographic information or a URL for the content?

Answerbag.com is not a reliable source. There's no assertion of expertise by whomever answered the question there and the answer and comments do not cite a single source.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

can you fix references too?

Or rather, add references for the claim that there are more than two genders. That seems like the sort of thing that should at least have a reference, as it is somewhat controversial.76.9.104.195 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pride Flag

Is the pansexual pride flag (described here) [6] well known enough to be worth inclusion? I have seen it used multiple places on the internet.

While a very pretty and colorful artistic statement, this is just something that one person "invented" for her own amusement and has no validity at all. I could make another one and someone else could make a third, etc. In fact we see just such as thing going on with the "Symbol" (above), again an artistic creation of one person expressing their own particular point of view. Neither have any authoritative references or acceptance. In fact, strictly by accident and with all good will I'm sure, it is someone trying to back into verifiability, by (mis)using wikipedia to lend validity to an original artistic creation, somewhat in the same way that many people have tried to lend gravitas to their own original theories and research. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What does the yellow refer to symbolically? What, more to the point, are the pink and blue stripes doing there? Doesn't pink usually symbolise gay, and blue straight, as on the better-known

bisexual pride flag? So what happened to the assertion that pansexuals don't acknowledge a duality in the sexes? This certainly looks a lot like it - with a yellow bit for everyone else. Oh yes, very inclusive. I'm sure asexual, trans and genderqueer people don't feel at all marginalised by that.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nuttyskin, the description for the image says: "Pansexual pride flag. Three horizontal stripes of color, from the top: pink, yellow, light blue. The blue portion of the flag represents those who identify as male (regardless of biological sex), The pink represents those who identify as female (regardless of biological sex), and the yellow portion, found in between the blue and pink portions, represents those who identify as both genders, neither gender, or a third gender; such as Transgenders and Intersexuals. The yellow also represents non-binary attraction between the male and female genders." Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here? Why was the pansexual pride flag never added?.. I understand there have been some valid points raised, one can't just create a flag and expect the world to adopt it. And yes, obviously someone created this flag. But I think the fact that I'm speaking about this a year later and it's still widely accepted in the pansexual community as our pride flag, and our pride colors, would cement the fact that this flag is here to stay. TaylorLane^{bore me} 18:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Lane, that flag keeps getting removed from this article because of the WP:Original research policy. I never removed it, but it keeps getting removed by others (mostly by IPs, or one person as different IPs). Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation of the pansexual flag is: The blue and pink colors are representing "male and female" as it is common to associate blue as a color related to masculinity and pink for femininity. Not only does this represent "male and female" as cisgender people because blue being defined as male is the gender norm and likewise with pink for female The gold or yellow isn't suppose to represent any one gender. It's suppose to be neutral or ambiguous. Is it a male color? Is it a female color? Is it neither? It represents unorthodox gender norms such as transgenderism, bigenderism. In aggregate, the flag represents a holistic view of gender expressions and that pansexual people do not make considerations of whether you belong to the blue stripe", "pink stripe"or "gold/yellow stripes" when considering romantic/sexual interest. My sources are myself as it as this just my opinion largely. 173.88.209.221 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Lirsia

Just to be clear: The pride flag debate is continued below; see #Pride Flag again. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Compared With Bisexuality"

Does anybody think that some of the language in this section needs to be trimmed back?

Quote:

Bisexuality is, for all intents and purposes, precisely the same as pansexuality. Pansexuality is generally used by those who feel the need to ensure that others realize gender doesn't play a part in their romantic or sexual inclinations at all; these people interpret bisexuality, for whatever reason, as inherently favoring one sex over the other, or at least differentiating between the two in terms of preference. This is a personal interpretation, and in most cases, the term pansexuality is unnecessary, and can easily be replaced by bisexuality without any resulting confusion or misunderstanding.

End quote.

Are phrases like "for all intents and purposes" and "precisely the same" appropriate for an encyclopedic article? And if bisexuality is the same as pansexuality, should there even be a pansexuality article at all? Should bisexuality, queer, and pansexuality all be lumped into one big article?

I'd propose that, if the section is even necessary, that it be more along these lines. (I also hope that one of us can find legitimate sources for the section regardless of what form it takes).

Compared with bisexuality/queerness Bisexuality indicates an attraction to both sexes, whereas "pansexual" is seen as a challenge a strictly male/female dichotomy of sexual orientation and identification. The term "pansexual" has more in common with the similarly ambiguous, open-ended identification of "queer," which similarly discards any particular gender connotations.

Thanks, I'm a new editor and I hope these suggestions are reasonable.

Person-In-Progress (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; that wording is dodgy at best. As explained in the articles already, pansexuality is the capacity for romantic and/or sexual attraction to members of either gender. Just for that reason alone, bisexuality clearly is not for any intents or purposes exactly the same. I'm not sure if this is just sloppy wording or someone inserting weasel words in there, but by all means feel free to correct it.

I wouldn't say in your rewording that pansexuality is a challenge to the male/female dichotomy, as that's a little POV'ish and beyond the scope of the section to boot.

Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! KaySL ^talk 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

synthesize/add 2/start intro with

• You are attracted to the person's personality, regardless of physical. ? Heard from (___ INSERT NAME) --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 07:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk • contribs)

Merged Pansexualism back into this article

I redirected Pansexualism back to this article, and merged that material back into this article as well. I understand that pansexualism as a hypothesis in psychology is not exactly the same definition of pansexuality in terms of sexual attraction/sexual orientation, but unless the two terms are distinct enough from each other, I am not seeing why this article (Pansexuality) should not cover both. This was also brought up above, at #Pansexualism as an ideology. Not to mention, the Pansexualism article was a stub and I do not feel that it can be expanded much beyond that. The Pansexuality article is small enough as it is, and benefits from this additional section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I really don't see them as being especially related. One is the sexual attraction to people regardless of what genitals they have, the other is the idea that I added garlic to my dinner because I thought it would get me laid. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. But surely they derived from the same place; it cannot be a coincidence that one is called Pansexualism and the other is called Pansexuality. It reminds me of Heterosexualism and Heterosexuality. And other similar terms, with alternate words to cover aspects of the same thing or the same thing as a whole. Though, yes, pansexualism and pansexuality are more distinct in their meaning. My point, however, is that despite this distinctness, they seem related enough. If they were "very unrelated," they would not be linked at all, such as by dictionaries.[7][8] Furthermore, I've heard people refer to pansexuality as pansexualism, which means either those people are simply unaware that the terms do not mean the same thing...or the words can (and do) mean the same thing at times (and is why they may be used interchangeably).

Either way, the two terms are linked enough, and I don't see why there should be two different articles covering both because of that and when information on both seems to be extremely lacking. Maybe I should take this matter to a related WikiProject, or to RfC? Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

These seem like two completely different topics, and should be in separate articles. I think the best way to address possible reader confusion is by using {{About}}. --Alynna (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Split tag brought me here. While different, they don't appear to be "two completely different topics" to me. They appear to be the same term that has two different meanings. So same topic, two different meanings. They are always in the same definition, as having derived from the same origin and possibly sometimes being interchangeable, like Flyer22 says.

The first source for the section in the article says: 1. the pervasion of all conduct and experience with sexual emotions.

2. the theory that regards all desire and interest as derived from sex instinct. Also pansexuality. — pansexualist, n.

The second source in the section is for "pansexual" and says: 1926 (pansexualism is from 1917), from pan- + sexual. The view that the sex instinct plays the primary part in all human activity, mental and physical; this was held by his critics to be the view of Freud, therefore a term of reproach leveled at early psychology.

So why exactly should this term have its own article? It appears to be a different aspect of the term pansexual that does not appear to be particularly notable and/or have enough information about it to warrant its own article. The term pansexual isn't even all that notable, since it is usually designated as an aspect of bisexuality. What looks to have happened to me is that the original definition of pansexual became muddled by those who took it to apply it to the romantic/sexual attraction to all genders and intersex individuals. "Pansexualism" should very likely be in the Etymology section, since it is the original meaning of the term. 110.55.108.31 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, the IP stated pretty much what I would have stated. Summarized my issue with pansexualism being split off quite well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They are two completely different topics (other than both relating to sex(uality)). This is an article on a topic, not a word. Pansexuality is a sexual orientation, while pansexualism is a psychological theory about the motivation for all actions. (The theory isn't even about sexual attraction.) Sure, they happen to share the same root word, but that doesn't mean they should be in the same article. Whether or not pansexualism merits an article is a different matter, and decided based on WP:NOTE and WP:RS, among other things. If it doesn't, it might merit a mention in some other article, such as sex and psychology. But it doesn't belong here, just because it shares an etymology, any more than capitalism belongs under capital. -Mairi (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mairi, per what I, as well as the IP stated above, I was basically saying that I don't see why the word "pansexualism" should have its own article. Since both terms share etymology, I don't see any issue with it being placed in the etymology section of this article, especially considering, like I stated, "I've heard people refer to pansexuality as pansexualism, which means either those people are simply unaware that the terms do not mean the same thing...or the words can (and do) mean the same thing at times (and is why they may be used interchangeably)." Plenty of Wikipedia articles have etymology sections showing where a word derived from, and how the word may have transformed and may be used completely differently today than it was back in its original use. And I don't see how we can have a proper etymology section of the term "pansexuality" without including mention of "pansexualism." If you look at Capitalism#Etymology and early usage, it says "Capital evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on proto-Indo-European caput, meaning "head", etc. Of course it's not going to be other way around (with "capitalism" belonging under "capital"), considering that it's "capitalism" that derived from "capital." But Capital is a disambiguation in this case, and so, yes, capitalism is listed there (under "See also").

All that said, I don't mind much if pansexualism is not mentioned in this article. My point is that it does not deserve its own article unless it is notable enough and can be significantly expanded. If it isn't/can't be, which seems to be the case, then if it should be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be in this article. If opening a WP:RfC about this will help form WP:Consensus about this matter, then let's do that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Difference Between Bisexual And Pansexual

I'm been asking around and really trying to figure out what this is (since I first heard it a couple days ago). Based on what I've figured out, here's how I would describe it.

On the normal sexual spectrum you range from homosexual, through bisexual, to heterosexual. It's actually a continuum - nobody is really 100% at either end, and of course bisexuals are not exactly in the middle. This is an indication of sexual preference.

As I understand it, pansexual means that you simply have no sexual preference, almost as if you can't see gender at all. Potential life partners would be judged solely on the basis of other criteria aside from gender.

So I do hope that helps clarify things a bit, and again it's based only on my discussions with a few pansexuals and I'll leave it up to the community here if you want to find citations or disagree entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.44.185 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is actually pretty much in line with what the lead (intro) of the Pansexuality article states. Still, there are many who view pansexuality as bisexuality or at least as a form of it, since it does involve sexual and/or romantic attraction to either sex. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pansexual and even Omnisexual are just other terms for being bisexual.

I've read this article and other ones by self described "Pansexuals" and their sexuality would still be bisexuality: attraction to both genders. once you start breaking it down to more specific attractions then you're no longer speaking about orientation. someone who is "pansexual" is bi. period. what their kinks are may be a different story but if they are attracted to both men and women (even including Transmen and Transwomen who identify as either a man or a woman), then you're bisexual.

Pansexual is a term that arose in the early 1900s to describe a way of thinking — especially prominent in certain psychoanalytic circles — that sexual instinct plays a part in all human thoughts and activities, even being the most important or only source of real energy in our lives. In fact, its earliest uses, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, were meant as insults directed at those psychoanalysts. Over the years, though, it has come to mean an openness to all sorts of sexual activities and groupings, including ones that society considers even more taboo than same-sex love.

Pansexual is just a safe cop out label for people who are bisexual yet biphobic and afraid to come out as actually being bisexual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.74.2 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, no. As someone who actually is pansexual, I can safely say that I am not biphobic and afraid to come out as bi, since I used to consider myself bisexual. Bisexual, to my mind, is liking people who are of either male or female, and who were born that way. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

IP, as I stated to you at Talk:Heteroflexible, plenty of people who understand sexuality don't define bisexuality in the same way; for those people, it's not about denial. It's about a different definition of bisexuality. The Bisexuality article touches on different definitions. A lot of people consider pansexuality to be a subset of bisexuality because the "two sexes" factor, but keep in mind intersex individuals and that there is said to be more than two genders. Sex and gender are not the same thing, though they can be...depending on the meaning. Gender is wider and involves more than just biological factors. Look at the Third gender article, for example. Not everyone identifies as a man or a woman.

Bottomline is that pansexuality has been distinguished from the two-sex/two genders view of bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pansexual is just another term for being bisexual or a subset of bisexuality. A lot of bisexuals myself included are attracted to Transmen, transwomen, and intersex people. The idea that bisexuality somehow only focuses on two genders and that bisexuals are only sexually and/or romantically attracted to biological men and women is completely false.96.227.207.86 (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It all comes back to some people defining bisexuality differently, IP. But your objection to that view of bisexuality is mentioned in the article, as you may have noticed. It says: Bisexual-identified people may object to this distinction, arguing that since bisexual is not simply about attraction to two sexes and encompasses gender as well, it can include attraction to more than two genders, as "gender" is a more complex issue; for example, gender identities that are wholly similar to each other. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You could just as easily argue that bisexuality is a limited subset of pansexuality. It's not a good idea to argue about sexuality based on one's own feelings; there are bisexual people I know who definitely would use one term about themselves and not the other. But it's almost as wrong arguing from the people one knows, whom for most of us do not quite encompass the whole range of human variability. The correct argument is the one you gave yourself in the paragraph above that, Bottomline is that pansexuality has been distinguished from the two-sex/two genders view of bisexuality. I put the key part in bold. If some people make the distinction, then we discuss it separately, reporting the distinctions people have made in reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DGG, is all of your reply to me? I ask because we're pretty much saying the same thing, and your response therefore seems more relevant to the ones stating that bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew - it puts a whole new angle on the lines "Get out from that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans". Dear old Big Joe Turner's original version of the song's lyrics here [9] at least avoided the pans - perhaps Bill Haley et al were using a metaphor within an euphenism. That's it, from now on I'll mainly be using Peter, frying and non-sticks. And avoiding pots altogether..... and wine gums.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Derek R Bullamore, I'm not completely sure what you stated...but I believe that you were stating that bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank-N-Furter

The page currently states Frank N. Furter from The Rocky Horror Picture Show identifies himself as a pansexual. He is a self-proclaimed "sweet transvestite" from Transsexual, Transylvania.".

I've watched the movie more than 30 times before and know the stageshow well - at no point is this declared. In actual fact, he has a preference for blond, muscly men. Being a "sweet transvestite" is not the same as being a pansexual. I am removing this from the article Nfsnobody (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Polyamory and Pansexuality

There are several references to polyamory in this article and I think they should all be removed. Pansexual is referring to a sexual orientation and according to the polyamory page on this site polyamory is a relationship status or type.

For example it has polyamory being related to bisexual in this topic, yet in polyamory a straight guy can have a polyamorous V style relationship with 2 straight girls and a straight girl can have relationships with 2 straight guys. The relationship structure has no bearing on the sexual orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drifterlrsc (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Drifterlrsc. What "several references to polyamory" are you referring to? All I see is this text and reference that you removed. But as to the definition of polyamory, judging by the reference you removed, there appears to be more than one way to define it...unless that source got its definition wrong. If its definition is not wrong and polyamory is sometimes defined that way, then the Polyamory article should be updated to include that definition with respect to its WP:DUE WEIGHT.

Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. All you have to do to sign your user name is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Above, a bot signed it for you. But you should sign your own comments from here on out. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look more into this, but quickly looking at the definition of polyamory in webster dictionary, polyamory.org and polymatchmaker all indicate relationships and not sexual orientation. For example the show Big Love on HBO is polyamory and they are all straight. So I will also re-examine the polyamory article closer. Drifterlrsc (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Omnisexual vs Pansexual

I've heard that there can be a subtle different in definition here. Omnisexual represents willing free love to anyone available with the only known limitations being possible (and often none there either) e.g.: practical ones of legality, safety or personal limits (e.g.: one or more parties don't get into CBT or blood letting for example). Omnisexuality highlights complete promiscuity and orgy activity and perhaps high libido (to the degree some might consider sex addiction) while pansexuality is a subset that accepts any mode but not necessarily all persons in those groups and can be more limited in areas of level of activity or quantity engaged with but may include polyamory (or not). While the prefixes are identical semantically, the omni prefix connotes a more encompassing level due to it's use and associations with other words in the language that imply that.

Bisexuality is the common term but either one could be an umbrella to the other based on the context. In the context of the presence of limitations or majority, bisexuality is chief but in the context of partners available, omnisexuality, pansexuality and bisexuality would be chief in that order. Limitations of activities are less definitive. There's also the problem of whether someone actual goes through phases of one to another. e.g.: asexual to straight to bi, to gay, back to bi, then omnisexual and then back to asexual. Some change while most are static. There might be some disorder related to identity related to various personality types including multiple personality or the disassociative ones (schizophrenic or borderline). While sexuality is not a disorder, some disorders tend to carry themes of sexuality. (e.g.: Kluver-Bucy Syndrome where there a temporal lobe region of the brain can cause omnisexuality and hyperorality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.89.240 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pride Flag again

I see the pride flag was added again and Flyer22 mentioned it's been removed in the past. See #Pride Flag above.

That said, I think it belongs on the page and is not WP:OR. The flag has its own article (Pansexual Pride flag) and is included on LGBT symbols. It is used on many other wikipedias as well (see File:Pansexuality_flag.svg). It's been good enough to include there and I don't see why it should not be here. Personally, unless Pansexual Pride flag gets deleted, I can think of no reason for its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is talking about this comment I made in response to Sophiyakim (talk · contribs) (and so that EvergreenFir or others would see the comment). And, Sophiyakim, don't mark edits as WP:Minor unless they are minor. I see that the Pansexual Pride flag article was created a little after I made the WP:OR comment in the Pride Flag section above. The pansexual pride flag fails WP:Notability and when one of the usual deletionists, or a very experienced Wikipedia editor other than me who recognizes that topic as failing WP:Notability, comes across its Wikipedia article, that article will be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think it's notable enough. But meh. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's going to need better sources than Tumblr and Wikispaces if its Wikipedia article is to avoid deletion once nominated for WP:AfD. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Am I missing something? I don't see anything that says images themselves need to be notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're asking about images themselves being notable because of this IP who recently removed the flag from this article. Above, I referred not only to the flag, but to the Wikipedia article about the flag. You can ask about the flag at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 - Yeah, I was asking more about the edit than what you said above. I'll ask there if the issue continues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that edit to highlight the issue of original research on the flag. Per Wikipedia's image policy, an image has to be relevant to an article and I am not convinced that the flag is relevant. I would argue that relevance, here, depends upon the flag's acceptance by the pansexual community and ability to verify that acceptance. Insofar as I can tell, there are no reliable sources for the pansexual flag, which makes it neither notable nor verified. I asked for a reliable source, therefore, so we could establish it as relevant. If we cannot agree on its relevance to the article, then I am going to move for a discussion on the image's deletion. 173.51.180.108 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how the flag would not be relevant. It does not need unanimous acceptance among the community to be relevant. While WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't the best argument, all sexuality articles have their respective flags in them. If you propose deletion of one, you should propose deletion of all. I see no reason why pansexuality should be singled out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added sources to the flag's page. See Talk:Pansexual_Pride_flag#PROD. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have to personally check every flag page for notability and verifiability in order to propose an image is not relevant. It's an absurd argument. I clearly stated my reasons for arguing that the flag image had not demonstrated relevance. That said, I think the additional sources you added on the flag article are satisfactory. Could you pick some of the ones you think are best and add them for the flag use here? I think this would verify that the flag not only exists but is standard in the pansexual community - and therefore relevant. 173.51.180.108 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• Regarding the book Sex and Society, Marshall Cavendish is the publisher. Who wrote the book? Who is/was the editor or editors? How reliable is the information in the book? Is the book well referenced?
• These three statements in the article seem contradictory:

"A literal dictionary definition of bisexuality, due to the prefix bi-, is sexual or romantic attraction to two sexes (males and females), or to two genders (men and women).[8][10] Pansexuality, however, composed with the prefix pan-, is the sexual attraction to people of all sexes and genders. Using these definitions, pansexuality is different in that it includes people who are intersex and/or fall outside the gender binary."

"It [pansexual] is generally considered a more inclusive term than bisexual"

"The term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality..."

• The sentence ("The term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality...") is written such that is sounds as if all sexuality scholars agree that pansexuality and bisexuality are the same. In the referenced book, the statement is preceded by "In some contexts..." and followed by "...although there are many differences."
• What does this mean? "...there are gender identities that are wholly similar to each other." Also, the reference for that statement does not support it. --Mark D Worthen PsyD 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marshall Cavendish passes as a WP:Reliable source; it's used in this article with WP:Due weight, as are the other sources. The Cavendish source is basically an encyclopedia (it calls itself that), just like this version of Sex and Society, so there is more than one author (details on that are noted at the start of the book). If the statements in the article with regard to defining pansexuality seem or are contradictory, then it's because, as that section discusses, including this source used for that information, people define bisexuality differently and they define pansexuality differently...which is also evidenced by this talk page. And like WP:Verifiability states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." I disagree that the interchangeably aspect is written "as if all sexuality scholars agree that pansexuality and bisexuality are the same"; it's simply noting that they are indeed used interchangeably, similar to how sex and gender are used interchangeably. I generally tend to stay away from using WP:Weasel words, such as "some people," on Wikipedia. For the vast majority of things, it usually goes without saying that those things don't apply to all people. And, besides, the interchangeably aspect can be sourced to a variety of WP:Reliable sources. But if we are to judge by WP:Due weight, bisexuality and pansexuality usually are not distinguished by scholars or the general public; bisexuality is defined in two ways -- the binary "male and female/man and woman" way, and in the way that pansexuality is defined. As shown by the source I linked to in this section, and this display of sources on Google Books, identifying as pansexual is generally seen as an alternative to identifying as bisexual...especially among those who feel that the term bisexual or bisexuality is limiting with regard to expressing their romantic and/or sexual attraction; for example, this scholarly source discusses that matter, and I'll add that source to the article now. I think it goes without saying that the term bisexuality is far more well known/mainstream. The term pansexual or pansexuality has been increasing in popularity, however. As for the bisexualindex.org.uk source, that does not count as a WP:Reliable source and I've been meaning to remove it; I'll remove it now and the "gender identities that are wholly similar to each other" part; to me, though, that line is supported, or somewhat supported, by the source's use of "attracted to people of a broadly similar gender" text. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning, in addition to alerting me to past related discussions and other resources. I have now read almost all of the previous discussions regarding pansexuality. I have also read some of your other, related posts. It seems that we agree on much more than we disagree. And to the extent we disagree, we differ regarding how to best explain something, not what we believe. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: With these changes, I added "sometimes" to the interchangeability part, so that it reads "sometimes used interchangeability." Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan sex

See also Pan (god) --Pawyilee (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015

The article is quite misinformed and actually causes ambiguity to what Pansexual actually is.

Pansexuality is also a term used in psychiatry, particularly with Freud meaning that all human behaviour is based on sexuality. This article implies that pansexuality is a sexual orientation, when it is different and a psychiatric term. Omnisexual is expressing or involving sexuality in many different forms or with a variety of sexual outlets.

Therefore, the beginning paragraph shouldn't be referencing the term as a sexual orientation, but what the actual definition is.

104.129.108.172 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request made. To reply to comment, WP:COMMONNAME. If you have reliable sources about this use of the term by Freud, please provide them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not misinformed in any way. And it does not call pansexuality a sexual orientation; for why it does not begin by calling pansexuality a sexual orientation and does not otherwise definitively state that it is one, see this discussion from Template talk:Sexual orientation. What the Pansexuality article does with regard to the sexual orientation aspect is state that pansexual people may consider pansexuality a sexual orientation, and it compares pansexuality to bisexuality since many people argue that pansexuality is bisexuality or is a subset of it, and since pansexuality is not usually listed as a sexual orientation in the literature concerning sexual orientation. As for the Sigmund Freud aspect, that is covered in the Etymology section; Freud's definition is not what pansexuality usually means these days, however; so WP:Due weight comes into play in that regard. WP:Due weight, and what sources usually state about pansexuality, is why the Freud aspect is not given much weight in this article. And, like the article is clear about, the term omnisexual is a synonym for pansexual. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Noting here on the talk page that with this edit (followup edits here and here), I altered the sexual orientation wording, giving it better context with the topic of the bisexuality debate. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Other minor tweak here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Separate Definition?

Okay, so reading this article on Pansexuality was interesting, definitely, as someone who felt formerly identified as Pansexual and currently identifies as Asexual. However, some of the text irked me a little bit. Maybe I do not have a full understanding of the Pansexual definition, however I was under the impression that Pansexuality was, yes, down to more than just gender or sexuality, however it was more to do with personality. Sort of like, as if I was attracted to anyone, regardless on gender or sexuality, depending on their personality? Kind of a more literal term of the phrase "having a type". Is this assumption correct, or have I simply misunderstood the term? If I am incorrect, which I fully accept as a possibility, is there a seperate term for this or is it not an actual coined definition? Anyone is welcome to help me! Saraya-Jade (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pansexual is nothing but another synonym or weasel-word for being bisexual as people who are bisexual are also attracted to people who are trans, etc. so the article should just be merged with bisexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.201.59 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely correct. It's just a new en vogue term that only exists because bisexuality became so mainstream that some people needed something else to lecture people about. It's merely a way of perpetuating a victimization: A little like "now we have something to educate people on again (phew!)" Tgm1024 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Go Ask Alice! commentary

I reverted an addition made by an IP, which was accepted by Matt Deres; my reasoning was clear: "We are reporting what a source states; follow it, and do not inject your personal feelings into it." I also responded via WP:Dummy edit to VisaBlack's post; as the link shows, I stated, "And I rejected the edit; we go by what the sources state, not our interpretation of the sources." We should not be letting our personal feelings dictate content to the point that we are putting words into a source's mouth. Removing the quotation marks hardly makes the matter any better. Sure, Go Ask Alice! was stating that pansexual people can be attracted to different types of people, but "all" is taking the matter beyond sex and gender, when the key definition of pansexuality is romantic or sexual attraction to "people of any sex or gender identity." There are many types of people a pansexual person might not be attracted to, just like any other person. The section even relays, "Volume 2 of Cavendish's Sex and Society, however, states that 'although the term's literal meaning can be interpreted as 'attracted to everything,' people who identify as pansexual do not include paraphilias, such as bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia, in their definition' and that they 'stress that the term pansexuality describes only consensual adult sexual behaviors'." So "all" is a stretch. And replacing "androgynous" with "non-binary" is putting words into the source's mouth. The fact is that cisgender is categorized as different than transgender, and Go Ask Alice! was simply adhering to that division and giving examples of the types of people that pansexual people are attracted to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And that Go Ask Alice! states "and everything else" is not lost on me, but they give their comment context before stating "and everything else." By "context," I mean examples of what type people they mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: After this edit, I tweaked it to this (followup edit here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Equivocational, irrelevant etymology

The etymology given for pansexuality in the article has nothing to do with the sexual orientation, but refers to the tendency in early psychoanalysis to attribute all human actions as being traceable to repressed sexual urges. It would be as if you were to talk about the origin of "bisexuality" as a term meaning intersexuality, despite the fact that this original use has nothing to do with what is currently meant by "bisexuality." Or if you were to talk about medieval uses of the word "gay" and claim that this word referred to homosexuality. Jan sewi (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jan sewi. As you saw, with this edit, I noted to you that the section "is here because this definition is still given when people research the definition of the term, and they have been confused by it." It's common for Wikipedia's Etymology sections, and etymology pieces in sources, to give definitions that no longer apply to the topic in the modern era. This is clearly because words commonly evolve and their meanings therefore commonly change. Sames goes for the word gay; check out that article. As you surely know, rarely is the term gay used to mean happy anymore. For older discussions about including pansexualism, or the original meaning of "pansexual" and "pansexualist," see Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 2#Pansexualism as an ideology and Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 2#Merged Pansexualism back into this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The way the current article is written is confusing, and may lead a reader to believe that Sigmund Freud coined the sexual-orientation-related term "pansexuality", which he didn't. It's important that someone actually research when the word for the topic at hand was coined. Putting the deleted part in there makes it more clear to the reader that pansexuality has nothing to do with Sigmund Freud's concept of pansexualism. Jan sewi (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan sewi, when it comes to this bit I removed (followup edit here) after you tagged it, it's not a good idea to re-add unsourced material unless it's certain that it can be sourced; this is per WP:Burden and WP:Preserve. That's why Doug Weller reverted your restoration of the material. I understand your point, however, and will look at some sources to see what I can do to remedy the situation; this may take a week or more, though, since I'm currently concerned with other matters on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

An exploration of the portuguese word "sexodivers(o/a)" which seems to carry less baggage, not having originated in the mouths of those who sit on the sidelines with notebooks, nor being the slapping back at the straight world with a once "scorn word" like "queer", might be useful here, or not. I do not feel equipped to opine. Of course it suffers from the curse of the gender defining ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.105.125 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced material

On the 18th, Udibi made this edit, which removed the following: the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations", it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.

On the 20th, Udibi then made an additional edit, which removed the following: To what extent the term bisexual is inclusive when compared to the term pansexual is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community.

For the first removal, Udibi stated, "Weasel words. Also Siri Eisner (cited) is a big proponent of the word bisexual. She wouldn't be advocating for the alternate identity label of pansexuality as implied here."

I reverted (followup edit here). I reverted because there was no weasel wording, if going by the WP:Weasel wording guideline, and because what was noted in the lead is fact and should be there per the WP:Lead guideline. I don't mind removing the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations" quote since it's not needed, but the fact that pansexual is often considered a more inclusive word than bisexual is supported by a number of reliable sources, including sources lower in the article, and (as stated) it is something that is supposed to be addressed in the lead. So is the fact that there is disagreement among the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community, about whether or not the term bisexual is inclusive enough. The lower article discusses this quite clearly, and I see no valid reason that the lead should not summarize what is lower in the article. Whether I use the Siri Eisner source or some other source, these aspects should be covered in the lead and lower in the article. The lead was not worded in a way that had Eisner advocating anything. It was using her as a source to support the debate that she discusses (a debate noted lower in the article). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, I removed the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations" piece (I'd been thinking about removing that anyway). Like I noted when removing it, "if someone feels that it or something similar to it should be here to explain what the gender binary is, feel free to re-add it or something like it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Pansexualism revisited

As noted here, I've restored that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I noted that this Freudian concept can sustain a Wikipedia article. I should have never merged it with this one back in 2011. I also noted that the original meaning of pansexuality can still be briefly covered in this article since there are sources that note the original meaning when discussing the modern-day meaning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)