From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pansexuality is its own sexuality.[edit]

The information provided on this page show a lack of understanding or respect for pansexuality. I was informed when I attempted to revise some marginalizing language that my revisions had to be discussed first. So, let's discuss. First up, why should it stand on this page that pansexuality is a branch of bisexuality? Mkd1400 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Mkd1400, regarding editors having reverted you, see where this was discussed (starting at 22:10, 17 January 2016). See what the Pansexuality article itself states, beyond the introduction you kept trying to change. Reliable sources are cited for the material. It's a fact that pansexuality may be considered a subset of bisexuality or as separate category. Bisexuality is not only defined as binary. It is sometimes defined to mean what pansexuality means. For the most part, when it comes to research on sexual orientation, pansexuality is treated as a subset of bisexuality or it's not acknowledged at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
These points are very valid about pansexuality being a branch of bisexuality, and it overall feels like it is covering the basics. Could we expand more on the similarities and differences between the two? It seems like there could be many sources and opinions on the matter that could be addressed. Mrichardson5 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Mrichardson5, I see that you are part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California College of the Arts/PHCRT 300 Queer Worldings (Spring). What more are you looking to add about the topic of pansexuality being similar to, the same thing as, or different than bisexuality? The "Comparison to bisexuality and other sexual identities" section is currently the biggest section in the article because pansexuality is so often compared to bisexuality. And I don't see that further expansion on that topic is needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC) ‎

Additional meaning of pansexual[edit]

The word pansexual has also been used to describe organizations or events that are open to all genders (usually connoting all orientations and preferences as well). Examples are Society of Janus and The Eulenspeigal Society. Since pansexual redirects to this page, text and sources for this usage should be added.

Spope3 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a fringe definition at best. Can you provide sources demonstrating this usage? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pansexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with bisexuality and views of bisexual community[edit]

1st time using talk page responding to request of Flyer22 Reborn so may not get tags right.

Reference in summary introduction, to views of bisexual community is inaccurate. The longer description in the body of the article gives more detail but the summary gives a different impression. This is at odds with the source quoted (one book by Eisner). Most bisexual organizations use more inclusive definition as cited by Robyn Ochs. [1]

Would it be better to cite each organization separately? Probably.

The longer discussion can be maintained in body of article but the summary at top should not be inconsistent with those definitions and discussions. KayScarlet (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)KayScarletKayScarlet (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, KayScarlet. As seen here and here, I reverted you on two edits. In the first edit, you changed "it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual" to "it is considered by some as a more inclusive term than bisexual." This is unnecessary WP:Weasel wording. Please read what WP:Weasel wording entails, and read the other Wikipedia rules I'm about to point to. The "it is considered by some" wording leaves readers to wonder who "some" are. We do not need to add "some." Use of "often" is correct and is supported by the first source it is attributed to; "some" is not. You also changed "is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community" to "has been debated within the LGBT community. Many bisexual organizations have sought the acceptance of a definition of bisexual as someone who is attracted to more than one gender, or similar wording." The issue I have with the latter is that it removes "especially the bisexual community," and it adds text to the lead that is already addressed lower in the article (this later information including supportive arguments and counterarguments). The inclusivity of the term bisexual has been especially debated in the bisexual community; the debate is not equal across the LGBT community. And as for the "many bisexual organizations have sought" addition, the lead is for summarizing, per WP:LEAD. For the Pansexuality article, the lead is not meant for addressing one definition of the term bisexuality; the lower part of the article elaborates on the debate. Furthermore, this source, at least the page that it is on, does not support your edit. It's also a blog, or personal website, source; I advise you to read WP:Reliable sources. Robyn Ochs is a WP:Notable bisexual activist, but I do not see that her site counts as a WP:Reliable source for bisexual and pansexual issues. Per WP:About self, she is, however, a reliable source for her own views on the matters. Also see WP:Due weight. Do you have a WP:Reliable source that specifically states that many or most bisexual organizations have sought the acceptance of a definition of bisexual as someone who is attracted to more than one gender? If not, you should not be adding that to the article.
With this edit, you also reverted Nick Moyes on the restoration of a sourced paragraph. Unlike the IP's claim that the paragraph is a "transphobic comment that stated that trans men and women werent real men and women," the paragraph is simply explaining that "pansexuals can be attracted to cisgender, transgender, intersex and androgynous people." It is also making it clear that "although the term's literal meaning can be interpreted as 'attracted to everything,' people who identify as pansexual do not usually 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." This is important information to retain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


KayScarlet, okay, now I see the source you are talking about. It wasn't working for me due to these words you'd added to it as a reference. What I stated above about the site/Robyn Ochs (and the other stuff) remains valid, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2017‎ (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And do keep in mind that Tumblr is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)