Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Additional meaning of pansexual

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726222011/https://thecenter.wsu.edu/resources/pansexuality/ to https://thecenter.wsu.edu/resources/pansexuality/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

Comparison with bisexuality and views of bisexual community

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.

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)

___

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Omnisexual and Pansexual aren't the same thing one is gender blind (pansexual) and the other one isn't. Yes, they are alike but not the same so I would recommend too change that a little and put Omnisexual out off the Pansexual text. 83.135.200.244 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pansexuality is its own sexuality.

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) ‎

Mrichardson5, Pansexuality is effectively that a pansexual loves people for their personality, not their gender. At least, That is what most LGBTQ+ Pansexuals agree on. Pansexuality is often referred to as "Basically Bi" which we are not. We don't have a gender preference or anything that specific. We prefer to judge and love people based on personality, and take no person at face value. I'mPansexual (talk) 12:36, 14 March (UTC)

But how do you discover someone's personality before you've met them? There must be other categories than sex or gender which nevertheless play a role in selection of potential partners: membership of certain online groups for shared interests (such as BDSM, power-exchange, etc.) or political activism. While these are not sex-related selections in the usual sense; there are predilections of attraction other than the typical, which are however well-known within the field of human sexuality. Nuttyskin (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Orientations describe a person's attractions in terms of how they are orientated in relation to their own sex. Are they same sex, different sex, or both? Pansexuality is an identity but does not describe the orientation of sexes. It exists in the realm of culture, specifically the individual and cultural practice of gender. Therefore it is not a sexual orientation. It's become fashionable to slap the term "sexual orientation" on everything vaguely sexual, but still the words in the term tell you what it mean. Sexual. Orientation. Gender cannot be measured, there are limitless genders. Nowadays, with the intensely political nature of Queer Theory and social media encouraging everyone to make identity yet another customized product (ironic seeing those who see themselves as "rejecting capitalism" be such hyper consumers), that distinction is lost on the average LGBTIQ person. So many of us exist in bubbles where long-discredited leftist ideas of the 1960s and 1970s are now considered "new" and "enlightened." If you don't buy into these stale ideas, if you don't ignore how flawed and fact-free these beliefs are, the kids these days call you "old fashioned." Since they don't know their history, the irony is lost on them. They also lack the awareness to see how similar to creationists they are. Is it any wonder that leftist Queer Theory so passionately denies science? Speaking of which, the studies that there are on this subject show that there is very little difference between the people to whom bisexual and pansexual-identified people are attracted. The only real difference? Pansexual-identified people are more likely to identify their own gender as nonbinary. The difference is literally the difference between 6 and half a dozen. By all means, let the pansexuals have their own identity, but the idea that they are a separate species is absurd. All sexes, all genders - the outcome is the same. Udibi (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are different. Omnisexuals recognize genders and cannot be described as gender blind while pansexuals are sexual attracted to people regardless of and can be described as gender blind. IsabellaScar (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--QueerFilmNerd^talk 00:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Potentially misleading quote: Second opinion requested

I'm concerned that the quote below may be misleading as it omits significant parts of statement made in the source material. Specifically, the American Institute of bisexuality page cited proceeds "or that they are specifically attracted to trans, genderqueer, and other people who may or may not fit into the mainstream gender categories of male and female." This omission to my view under-covers a major reason that people identify as pan-, omni-, etc. and misrepresents the American Institute of Bisexuality's understanding of these identities. Would appreciate a second set of eyes on this

The American Institute of Bisexuality argues that "terms like pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, and ambisexual also describe a person with homosexual and heterosexual attractions, and therefore people with those labels are also bisexual" and that "by replacing the prefix bi – (two, both) with pan- (all), poly- (many), omni- (all), ambi- (both, and implying ambiguity in this case), people who adopt these labels seek to clearly express the fact that gender does not factor into their own sexuality,"

--Dqdelamancha (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are arguing. We include quotes from sources all the time. The quote you've highlighted is relevant to the section in question, which is about a comparison to bisexuality (meaning how the terms/concepts are seen as different or as the same). The first source in that paragraph does continue with "or that they are specifically attracted to trans, genderqueer, and other people who may or may not fit into the mainstream gender categories of male and female," and states more after that. But I'm not understanding why you feel that this piece needs to be included, given what the four paragraphs before the "American Institute of Bisexuality" paragraph state. Plus, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on pansexuality don't define pansexuality as being "specifically attracted to trans, genderqueer, and other people who may or may not fit into the mainstream gender categories of male and female." The common definition of pansexuality is a "regardless of gender" or "gender-blind" one, meaning that non-trans and binary people are included as well. The second source in that paragraph addresses the following question: "Does identifying as bisexual reinforce a false gender binary?" And so does the text, taken from the source. When quoting, there are WP:Copyright violation concerns. We shouldn't quote the whole articles, even when they are small like these two are. Well, we usually shouldn't anyway. There is a lot of quoting in that paragraph already. It would probably be better to downsize that paragraph and summarize more, which is what I've been considering to do for months. Readers are free to click on the sources for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Student editing: Latest additions

Yxurbi13, I reverted this text because it's just a bunch of WP:Primary material about what individual authors stated. That is not a good way to build a Wikipedia article. We should mainly rely on WP:Secondary and tertiary sources and summarize the literature. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Yes, on Wikipedia, we include a scholar's argument or view here and there, but usually not one scholar's argument after another scholar's argument, and so on. I also reverted because of WP:Tone issues (for example, stating "some of these differences are very important"). Do read the sections of these pages I'm pointing you to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

First line

"Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity."
Is there a difference here between "romantic attraction" and "emotional attraction"? Normally there would be, but since we're talking about sexuality I doubt "emotional attraction" refers to being merely friendly towards the targets of attraction. The Romance (love) article describes it as "emotional feeling of love for, or a strong attraction towards another person", which kind of proves the point. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

Pansexuality and omnisexuality, nowadays at least, are being used to mean two different (although closely related) things. See omnisexuality defined here: https://rainbowpedia.wikia.org/wiki/Omnisexuality Both are attracted to all people, however the idea of being gender-blind is true to pansexuals but not omnisexuals.

I would request that omnisexuality be added as a separate entry to distinguish it from pansexuality. Thank-you for your time and consideration. Peppermint Nebula (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peppermint Nebula: Wikia is not a reliable source and it is a fanwiki. If you want to create a new article, then start one in draft namespace with reliable sources. Please also see WP:YFA. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 15:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Masum Reza^📞 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to reformat and cite additional sources

This is obviously a controversial topic, but this article does not explain the source of the controversy or the differing opinions on it in a clear way. Virtually the entire article is made up of the "Comparison to bisexuality and other identities" section, which is long and reads more like a debate than an explanation. Overall, I think this article should focus on the historic definitions and usages of the words "pansexuality" and "bisexuality," emphasize that they vary, and explain how these variations have led to conflicting understandings of both terms.

First, I do not think the introduction should delineate any arguments comparing pansexuality and bisexuality as it does now. It would be better to simply state that it is a subject of debate due to varying and conflicting definitions of both terms.

Second, I think the "Etymology" section should explain that the modern use of "pansexuality" does not refer to pansexual psychological theory. It should maybe also mention that the literal definitions of "pansexuality" and "bisexuality" are a major source of the controversy surrounding these terms.

Third, I think the "Comparison" section should be split up into "Contemporary definitions and usages of the label" and "Controversy surrounding/Criticisms of the label." The first of these sections should cite varying definitions "pansexuality," and the second should cite critiques of these definitions. I think we should attempt to find and cite the earliest documented instances of the modern usages of "pansexuality" and "bisexuality." I want to cite the archives of the "I_am_Pansexual" Livejournal and the 1990 Bi Manifesto.

Linguajay (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Jay

Pansexual

🇺🇸 According to Wikipedia, 1(one) criteria of a pansexual person is having an emotional attraction to a person regardless of gender, biological sex, or gender expression.

That could include the entire human race as we know it today. We are all capable of being emotionally connected or attracted to anyone. As a subject matter expert in the field of pansexuality, a true definition must include a persons sexual behavior to make it a distinct sexual orientation. Just as heterosexuality, and bisexuality, homosexuality indicate a person’s emotional attractions as well as their sexual attractions and sexual behavior thus making them distinct sexual orientations.

In conclusion the term emotional Attraction should be removed from all references of pansexuality. VeteransCouncil (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So it means bisexual

Whats wrong with the old term bisexual?--CuriousQuestions (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me why people feel it is a necessary term, but it is well attested, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Crossroads1 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

technically it is the same term that is correct, however pansexual's believe the term Bisexual has negative implications with the meaning of Bi being 2. some argue Bi means ATLEAST 2 but due to the implications with the sex vs gender debate most prefer to use the term PAN to be more inclusive of all genders. will see if i can find a source for this but this is more or less the common layman explanation for it. remembering Wikipedia is not a forum 101.167.226.89 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"gender-blind"

neither of the citations listed for the assertion in the lede that "pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind" actually says anything about "gender-blindness". the phrase should be removed or given an actual source. 130.180.88.101 (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise and potentially biased language

“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][9][15] Pansexuality, however, composed with the prefix pan-, is the sexual attraction to a person of any sex or gender. Using these definitions, pansexuality is defined differently by explicitly including people who are intersex, transgender, or outside the gender binary.[3][8][9]”

1. A literal etymological reading of Latin prefixes is not the same thing as a “dictionary definition.” Quoting Wikipedia itself: “...lexical definition of a term, also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage.” This is quite evidently not the common usage of the term bisexual.

2. By the same token, the literal etymological meaning of the Greek prefix pan- is “all” (as the article itself states a couple of paragraphs below) and not, as asserted in this paragraph, “any.”

As result, the paragraph really confuses the issue rather than clarifies. I suggest it be rewritten. Here is one potential new version:

“By strict etymology, the Latin prefix bi- means “two” and the Greek prefix pan- means “all,” but this is not the common usage or dictionary definition for either term. Bisexuality is sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one (but limited to two) biological sexes and Pansexuality is the sexual and/or romantic attraction to multiple genders or sexes. Using these definitions, pansexuality is defined differently by explicitly including the dimension of gender.

It would be even better to include the most common and authoritative definitions. For instance the definition for bisexual most commonly used by LGBTQ+ advocacy and support organizations is:

A person with the potential to be attracted - romantically and/or sexually - to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.

Sometimes called the Ochs definition (for Robyn Ochs), it’s glaring absence from this section raises genuine red flags that the section is meant to drive a conclusion rather than neutrally describe the issue. TheCormac (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "This is quite evidently not the common usage of the term bisexual." Eh? "Bisexual" referring to two sexes or to two genders is the most common definition of "bisexual," as shown by studies on sexual orientation or bisexuality specifically. This is also shown by dictionary sources. I'm not sure what dictionary sources you've been looking at. Various authoritative sources (including relatively recent ones) and dictionary/other encyclopedic sources do only mention two sexes/two genders (male/female and man/woman) when defining or referring to bisexuality, and that includes the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association. Other sources for bisexuality state "more than one gender", "irrespective of gender" or "all sexes/genders." As I've stated before, there is a binary definition of bisexuality and non-binary definitions of bisexuality (which use different wordings). The American Psychological Association has also used the "more than one gender" wording for bisexuality. As for "all sexes", what is the third sex supposed to be? Many intersex people do not like being called a third sex. And on the "all sexes/genders" note, various reliable academic sources treat bisexuality and pansexuality as the same thing or explicitly subsume pansexuality under "bisexuality." That is why this 2015 "Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity" source, from Cengage Learning, page 322, states, "Pansexuality is also sometimes included under the definition of bisexuality, since pansexuality rejects the gender binary and encompasses romantic or sexual attractions to all gender identities." It's why the Pansexuality article addresses the bisexuality vs. pansexuality debate. Ochs's definition (which I think was included in the article at one point) is Ochs's definition.

The text in question can be reworded, but not for the reasons you've cited. And we should stick to what the sources state and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Important days for Pansexuals: Pansexual pride day falls on December 8th every year.

Pansexual/Panromantic visibility day, which is a day to celebrate and learn about Pansexuals, falls on March 24th. 

Pansexuals, as being part of the LGBTQIAP+ community, celebrate their pride in the month of June, along with the rest of the community. Amber Rose 216 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Amber Rose 216 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are distinct sexual orientations

Hello, I would like to ask for a correction in this article. Omnisexuality and pansexuality are presented as synonyms (esp. in the etymology part), while it is actually not the case. Indeed, they both mean being attracted to all genders and that's why their etymologies are similar. However, pansexuality implies a « gender blindness », meaning that a pansexual person will not pay attention to gender ; while omnisexual persons do. The fact is that letting this kind of informations on a website like Wikipedia contributes to a confusion and misinformation on these sexual orientations...
I created a page for omnisexuality in French, you may have a better understanding checking its english sources, or I can send you the links if you prefer. (the page : omnisexualité)
If you would like to translate the page for omnisexuality and so avoid this misinformation, I would be glad to help you ! (I will try to write it in English soon, but you can go ahead if you want)
(Ps : I know that they are presented as synonyms in English, German, Chinese and Portuguese ; but these ones are under protection and we can't correct this amalgam. This is why I'm asking this to you !)

Thank you for understanding the problem and for your time, have a nice day ! --Sainka squid (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

See what I stated in the #Omnisexuality section above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Omnisexuality

In the article, it states that "Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity."

However, that is not what omnisexuality is. Omnisexuality is being open to a relationship with someone that identifys with any gender, but gender can affect a choice in partner. Therefore, someone who is omnisexual, like myself, does not identify with being gender blind, a term also mentioned in the article.

Furthermore, omnisexuality is not mentioned within the initial article again, which gives an inconsistency, and also shows that omnisexuality and pansexuality -however similar- are not the same.

Thank you for reading this far, if you managed it. I would really like to get this article edited, but by all means, correct any errors I may have made in this rant of sorts. Thank you again. Dilan the emo nerd (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. Do you have reliable sources that distinguish omnisexuality from pansexuality? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have found articles on Quartz, Affinity, and some definitions on Urban dictionary stating that there is in fact a difference between the two sexualities. Furthermore, pansexuality and omnisexuality are celebrated on seperate days of pride month, clearly indicating that they are different.

As an omnisexual myself, I know what I identify with, and it is not pansexuality. Dilan the emo nerd (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's this article in Quartz, which says:

* pansexual (gender-blind sexual attraction to all people)

* omnisexual (similar to pansexual, but actively attracted to all genders, rather than gender-blind)

and this article entitled "What Is the Difference Between Pansexuality And Omnisexuality?" in Affinity Magazine, which says:

"...I saw the terms pansexual and omnisexual being used interchangeably. However, they are not synonyms of each other (thus being why they each have their own day during pride month); there is a big difference between the two that needs to be acknowledged.

Most people define both terms as meaning the attraction to all genders, but this isn’t fully true. Oxford Dictionary defines pansexual as not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity and omnisexual as involving, related to, or characterized by a diverse sexual propensity." Carlstak (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Poor sources - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That source's comment about Oxford links to lexico.com, which isn't the same as the Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I just served up the sources referenced but not cited by Dilan the emo nerd. I'm not defending the sources, but I wouldn't call Lexico a "poor source". You should know that it is published by Oxford University Press, which also publishes the Oxford English Dictionary. Lexico.com is a collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press, and all its definitions are written by Oxford lexicographers. Carlstak (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, give pansexual and omnisexual as synonyms. Beyond that? This 2013 "Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution" source, from Basic Books, page 28, states, "'Pansexual/omnisexual: people who are attracted (sexually, romantically, and/or otherwise) to people of all genders and sexes, or to multiple genders and sexes, or regardless of sex and gender, and who identify as pan/omni." It only distinguishes the two by stating, "Pansexuality and omnisexualty differ from each other by their Greek and Latin roots (pan meaning all in Greek, and omni the same in Latin)." This 2016 "Introducing the New Sexuality Studies: 3rd Edition" source, from Routledge, page 202, treats pansexual and omnisexual as the same thing when speaking of a person's sexual identity. This 2017 "Young Bisexual Women's Experiences in Secondary Schools" source, from Routledge, page 2034, states, " 'Omnisexual' and 'pansexual' have different etymological bases but essentially the same meaning, omni -- being Latin-derived -- and pan -- being Greek-derived -- meaning 'all' or 'many' (Soble, 2006)." This 2016 "The Autism Spectrum Guide to Sexuality and Relationships: Understand Yourself and Make Choices that are Right for You" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 31, states, "Pansexuality/omnisexuality. This is the sexual attraction towards people as individuals rather than to people because of their gender."

So, yes, it makes sense to present pansexuality and omnisexuality as synonyms in this article. Per WP:POVFORK, omnisexuality certainly shouldn't be its own Wikipedia article. There also aren't enough reliable sources under that term. Passing mentions don't count as "enough reliable sources", especially when so many of those are presenting the term as an alternative term for pansexuality. So WP:NEO applies. An alternative to having omnisexuality mentioned/bolded in the lead of this article is redirecting it to one of the sections and adding any relevant (but not undue), decently sourced content about it there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My earlier response was to both users. But it does appear Lexico is a better source than I thought. Thanks, Flyer22 Frozen, for these comments. I've taken omnisexuality out of the lead and put it under the Etymology section and will point the redirect there. I think the lead should focus on pansexuality, as that term has far more use than omnisexuality. Also, not having omnisexuality in the lead helps forestall future complaints, as equating the two isn't so prominent. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Having sources for something as rapidly evolving as language isn't practical, omnisexual seems a rather new identity so many people won't have acknowledged it as independent from pansexuality yet. There will always be debates on the validity of a term, even pansexuality is controversial as an identity due to the overlap with bisexual. However if you're going to add pansexual, you may as well add omnisexuality as it's own thing, it's at least one of the more widespread of the marginalized multiple gender attraction related orientations. Yes, I know this is an extremely late reply, but I wanted to give my 10 cents, or however the expression goes. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ThaliaHolmesMtF, regarding this? The sources showing otherwise are right there above listed by me. And I have more. Where are yours? We go by WP:Reliable sources here. Your personal opinion holds no weight here. And that goes for everyone else arguing "but omnisexual is different." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, you were reverted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

exclusionary

the omission of this term's use for people who have sex with pans should be corrected. 173.87.171.88 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The cooking utensils or the goat-like mythical creatures? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop the omnisexual erasure

Omnisexual is very commonly confused with pansexual, and as an omni person myself, I’m done putting up with this BS. Pansexual is attraction to the person rather than the gender, meaning gender has no part of a relationship, while omnisexual is attraction to all genders with a preference. Please stop saying Omni is synonymous to pan. Thanks! Thepartyboy607 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll read through these articles, but I think it would definitely be worthwhile to add a section in the main article about this.Historyday01 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Of those sources, all of them except for WebMD do not appear to qualify as WP:Reliable sources at all, lacking a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and some being outright user-generated content. Regarding WebMD, we follow WP:WEIGHT; this is neither a medical topic, so it's out of their area of expertise, and there are many academic sources that contradict them. See #Omnisexuality above (permalink). Per WP:SOURCETYPES, academic sources are greatly preferred. I did however remove the term from the infobox, to hopefully lessen future complaints of this nature and because the infobox itself I don't think is needed, so we don't need this term in it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Well, I withdraw my previous comment. Thanks for commenting about this, Crossroads.Historyday01 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

the inclusivity of bisexuality is not "debated" - Bisexuality is not binary

Bisexual = attracted to more than one gender (two, three, four...). Pansexuality is more inclusive because it does not exclude any sex/gender, but the way the paragraph is written suggests that Bisexuality excludes non-binary (and trans?) people, which is untrue. The paragraph "comparison between pansexuality and bisexuality also does it. Biphobic people do argue that bisexuals only like cisgender men and women, but their opinion should not count. While "bisexual" was not invented by bisexual people (Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis), Bisexuals (and Bisexuals only) get to define themselves and whom they're attracted to, which they did (https://pastebin.com/HniykJpb) in 1990; the LGBT community has accepted the definition. Please fix this (I would do it myself but the page is protected due to vandalism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.33.13 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, as GLAAD defines bisexual/bi as "a person who has the capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional attractions to those of the same gender or to those of another gender" while the full report on page 20 says

Some people who have the capacity to be attracted to people of any gender may consider themselves part of the bi+ community and/or choose other words to describe their sexual orientation, such as: pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, fluid, queer, and more. Some people prefer to avoid any label at all. Given the lack of understanding of even the word bisexual, it's best to only use alternate words if someone specifically self-identifies that way and asks for their preferred term to be used.

Another report says that pansexual people are under in the bi+/bisexual umbrella, noting that pansexual people have "the capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attractions to those of any or all genders. Pansexual people are typically considered part of the bisexual community" while saying that bisexual people have the "capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attractions to those of the same gender or to those of another gender." So I'll look at it, trying to examine all the sources first and update it accordingly. Additionally, however, the whole page needs to be updated in terms of adding archivedate/archiveurl, and perhaps some of these GLAAD resources too. The page is surprisingly short as compared to the Bisexuality page, so I think it should be expanded. Historyday01 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Hello, your definition of bisexuality is wrong. I would like the definition of bisexuality changed.

I find it disrespectful as it this definition excludes people, which is not the case. Yes, the prefix bi- does technically mean two but I’m bisexuality it is two or more. We do not exclude anyone, whoever wrote this needs to get their head out and start living in modern society that isn’t biphobic.

I would like it changed from saying two [men and women] to two or more. The same as pan!

Thank you, And if you don’t change it all your doing is stirring up hate towards bi people because some people think we exclude but we don’t. This is repetitive but I WANT MY POINT ACROSS

- An angry bi person Who ALSO identifies as pan and greysexual

I don’t need references cause I have a brain. Literally look it up. 207.136.10.79 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Exclusion of Bisexual Erasure in See Also

I don't think that the article bisexual erasure should be included in the see also section. I think that there is an implication there that pansexuality is bisexual erasure, which is an opinion held by "battle axe bisexuals" among others.

This is an area of controversy in the bisexual community and I think that Wikipedia should not take a stance or appear to take a stance on it.

Bisexual erasure can be found in the see also section of the bisexuality article where it makes a lot of sense, is not controversial, and can easily be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbleobviously (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bubbleobviously, hmm. I'll see if I can add something better. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding in a "Media depictions" section?

I wanted to post about this first before adding in a whole new section titled "Media depictions" on the main page. It would if added, would follow the "Pansexual & Panromantic Awareness Day" section on the main page. It would be somewhat like a section on the Bisexual erasure page. My idea was to use some of the best examples from the Media portrayal of pansexuality page and move them into the main page. Anyway, @EvergreenFir, @User:Crossroads, @User:SMargan, @User:Possibleuseful, @User:DarkGlow, @User:PanagiotisZois, and anyone else concerned, I'd like to see your contributions in this discussion. I didn't know how to indicate this on the main page, as it's not a merger or a split, so adding a new section seemed like the right thing to do. With that, I look forward to hearing from you. --Historyday01 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's going to be WP:Undue weight on the topic as a whole to have all that here. I think having it in See also is enough. At most, a paragraph done via WP:Summary style, but I still prefer the link. Remember, it's a wiki, people just click to the next article when they want to read more; a longer article here may lead to a TL;DR effect. By the way, stuff like "as argued by SYFY and ComicsAlliance commentators" should not be included at all anywhere. Those are non-noteworthy opinion pieces, basically blog posts, and fansites will give all sorts of speculations (even not related to sexuality) to get clicks. Per the titles of these articles and sections, only characters that are canonically pansexual (etc.), and according to reliable sources, should be included. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, while I appreciate your comment, I do think that a short media section (probably even shorter than what I proposed initially) could do this article good. Besides, I do think that the main page is a bit too short, about I think a media section could help. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at comparable articles, I see that both Bisexuality and Lesbian have very(!) long sections on media portrayals even while there is also a separate article on Media portrayals of bisexuality and Media portrayal of lesbianism. (Side note: do we want to standardize whether "portrayal" is singular or plural in these article titles?) Homosexuality doesn't have a section on media portrayals, and indeed doesn't even mention "media" except once in the sense of "press" (and mentions "film" and "television" once each); there also isn't any Media portrayal of homosexuality to summarize(?!). But given the great length of our article on Media portrayal of pansexuality, I think a short summary + {{Main article}} link is not only acceptable but WP:DUE/necessary here, currently a surprising omission that a more complete article should have. Personally, I don't see why articles like Bisexuality and Lesbian have such long sections, though; I think they and the section in this article could stand to be relatively short, a few paragraphs, focusing if possible not on so many different individual pieces of media as on on general trends, in a summary style, as Crossroads says. (It may also be appropriate to look at whether the other articles really need to duplicate so much of their media representation sub-articles. And to look at whether it'd be sensible to create a proper Media portrayal of homosexuality article!) -sche (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

-sche, that is a very good comment. You are right that Bisexuality and Lesbian have long sections on media portrayals even though there are separate articles. I was actually planning to tackle the Media portrayal of lesbianism article after fixing up the Media portrayals of bisexuality and Media portrayals of transgender people recently. I can agree with you that a short summary which focuses on general trends and in a summary style would make sense. I think the Bisexuality and Lesbian have had long sections like that for a while. I could ask on the talk pages of each about that. When are saying that it may be "appropriate to look at whether the other articles really need to duplicate so much of their media representation sub-articles," are you referring to the bisexual and lesbian media portrayal pages? And yes, I think a proper Media portrayal of homosexuality article would make sense. I'd say it should be focused only on gay men as to distinguish from Media portrayal of lesbianism. Also, I do think we should standardize whether to use portrayal or portrayals, because I'm a bit confused about which one to use myself. Historyday01 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm still thinking of how to incorporate this the Media portrayal of pansexuality page into the article in an effective way, but I don't think the page I have in the sandbox is doing any good at this point, so I blanked it for now. Historyday01 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Historyday01 (talk) - That sounds like a great idea! Considering a "Media Depictions" section is a standard section in a number of the other corresponding 'wiki pages' of similar topics, then I feel such a section is more than appropriate for this "Pansexuality" 'Wiki page'. I cannot wait to read what you come up with, when it is published. SMargan (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I only said that the page LGBT should be removed from the "See also" section because the lead to the page already talks about the LGBT community... Historyday01 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New Additions and Changes for May 2021

In the next week or so I plan to make some changes to this article. First, I plan on doing some major restructuring of the article. The reasons behind restructuring the article are threefold: firstly, to narrow down the discussions already present in the article; secondly, to provide more cohesion between the article’s topics as a whole; and thirdly, to provide more structural clarity for readers of the article. Importantly, I will not have replaced or removed any major portions of the article as is, and all material currently included in the article is still within the article, just maybe moved from where it is currently.

As for my contributions besides the restructuring, there are three areas that I plan to contribute to. Firstly, I aim to provide scholarly distinction between pansexuality and omnisexuality, and provide more context behind the origin of pansexual and pansexuality as terms. This will provide more context for the reader on the rough periods of how pansexual and pansexuality changed over time. Secondly, I aim to add information from reputable studies relating to the perception of bisexuality and gender among pansexuals and bisexuals. These will further the discussion behind bisexuality and its relation to the gender binary, while including information about pansexual people in this discussion. Thirdly, I plan to include summaries of some scholarly discussion of bisexuality as an umbrella term that pansexuality is under (or vice-versa, or neither), as the term is debated among scholars that worked on the study of pansexuals and pansexuality. This will work to provide context of scholarly discussion about the relationship between bisexuality and pansexuality as identities.-- JE215 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: see my draft of the proposed additions and changes on my user page. -- JE215 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to your user page and no draft of proposed additions is there. Hmm. Anyway, I'm still planning to add a shortened version of the section I talked about in Talk:Pansexuality#Adding in a "Media depictions" section? at some point. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be under my sandboxes labeled User:JE215/Pansexuality if you still want to check it out. If you can't see it through the link, try opening it while signed out or in another browser. The link is a little wonky for some reason. Overall, though I don't see any of my restructuring potentially interfering with your addition. JE215 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok. I'll definitely take a look. Historyday01 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to change the wording of the headings; we don't want those to be too long. Usually student editors just add content rather than restructure. I would suggest focusing on whatever you were going to add first, and handling restructuring afterward in separate edits for easy comparison by article watchers. Also, just as a general reminder that student editors often need, please keep WP:Due weight in mind for how these ideas are presented. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made my new contributions to the article. Presuming that at least a sizable portion of the content I've added will stay after consideration from others, I still believe that dividing the article will be justified. Currently, there are three areas of conversation that I can identify covered in the Comparison section: first, definitive comparisons between bisexuality and pansexuality (alongside term definitions, such as the discussion of fluid and polysexual); second, the discussion of gender between pansexuality and bisexuality, specifically with the paragraphs describing the stereotype of bisexuality as supporting the gender binary; and thirdly, based on my new contributions, the discussion of the bisexual umbrella and its relation to pansexuality. I'm of the belief that reorganizing the article by adding subheadings to reflect these three areas of discussion will improve readability of the information present in the article significantly. Furthermore, I also think that it will facilitate further contribution to the article by allowing contributors to better conceptualize covered and uncovered ground. But, this is my perspective, so I'm not going to restructure the article until after further discussion on this matter of reorganizing.JE215 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

There's a new pan flag, they changed it because the creator of the original is lesphobic. I say we can edit it to the new flag Nomikgnomik (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing the pan-flag on the site.

The picture of the flag should be changed to the new one. Im not gonna lost the reasons but you will find them easily just by looking them up :)) Ennyinnit (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Same as the other edit above. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"often considered"

@Thattransgirl and Maby51: I would also like to avoid an edit war, so I am saying here that I would like to undo Maby51's recent edit. Looking at both of the cited sources, neither describes the "pan is more inclusive" view as being held "often"; both sources go to great lengths to describe bi's potential as an umbrella term that can include more than just attraction to two sexes. I think both sources verify the language used in the edit by Thattransgirl. Maby51, if you are fairly convinced of your view, you may want to look for sources that comment on the frequency of the various definitions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems wiser to go for the weaker, and uncontroversially true, wording than to use "often considered" unless there are good references to support it. It can credibly be argued that "often considered" is overstating the prevalence of this opinion and going beyond what the (current) sources support. I guess it depends on the exact meaning of "often". Clearly some people to do hold this opinion, and it may be that they state it loudly and often, but "often considered" here seems to be implying a widely held opinion rather than a narrowly held but frequently expressed opinion. It may be that "considered by some" is also not an ideal wording but it seems the preferable of the two. I feel that with "sometimes considered" would be a simpler and better option than either. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I went ahead and changed it back to "considered by some to be" since there seems to be pretty clear consensus and the person who reverted me still hasn’t showed up to provide any input. I think we should definitely continue this discussion about possible other ways to word this however. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed it back to the original. The first source uses a stronger description than "often." It says, "It’s generally considered a more inclusive term than bisexual." It's repeated in "Comparison to bisexuality and other sexual identities" in the Wikipedia page. I've also seen editors wave around MOS:AWW at articles. However, if we want to water down the description, I can support DanielRigal's suggestion of "sometimes considered." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That first source is also of lower quality than the second, being an anonymous Go Ask Alice piece rather than a published book. "Often" is POV. And I prefer "by some" because it is more clear that only some agree with that claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to people who consider "bisexuality" to be as inclusive as "pansexuality", but aren't you concerned about someone attacking our use of "some" and grumbling that it's absent in both sources? Doesn't "sometimes considered" also let everyone know it's "some" people, but with the benefit of being less provocative in light of MOS:AWW? Shouldn't we remove the Go Ask Alice quote and replace it with something like this? It says "the term has been used to be more inclusive" and "is considered a more inclusive term." This has more information. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

History

A thread on WT:LGBT about the project's ten most-viewed, lowest-assessed articles prompted me to look at whether this article's assessment, which was set to "Start"-class over a decade ago at which time the article was but a stub, needed to be updated. This led me to think about what gaps the article still has. One is the history of the community and term; the main sentence (singular!) about it is "According to social psychologist Nikki Hayfield, 'the term pansexuality first came into use during the 1990s[...]'". The term pansexual in reference to sexual orientation has been around since at least the 1970s; a 1974 issue of New York Magazine documents bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual as terms, and already in 1973 there was an article in Ramparts about how "all my friends had been what I would call pansexual, avoiding the older term bisexual, which is meaningless when you can count more than two sexes". (I provide the latter as an illustrative example; the article is not citeable as that would run into PRIMARY and OR issues.) The 2015 edition of Bi Any Other Name states that "Pansexual people have been actively involved in the bisexual community since the 1970s." While we reached the point over the last decade(!) where this is "C"-class, researching and adding more referenced content on the history of the community and term would help towards increasing the article's completeness and quality further. Of course, much depends on what reliable secondary sources have covered. I'll work on this myself, but also mention it in case anyone else is inspired to. -sche (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea... I still have to add a summary of that section on portrayals of pansexual people in the media and link to that Media portrayal of pansexuality, and I suppose I will write it some day. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

While, in the 1970s, the term may have existed beyond Freud's meaning, it's understood that it wasn't commonly used at that time. It's not only Nikki Hayfield who says that the term, as we understand it today, emerged in the 1990s. The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies says, "Pansexuality emerged in the early 1990s as a new sexual-identity or sexual orientation term that attempted to describe desires that already existed for many people." Also, thinking on bisexuality visibility, Seeing Gender: An Illustrated Guide to Identity and Expression says of the 1970s-1980s that "the B and T of LGBT were not recognized at this time, and transgender and bisexual people were (and often still are) harmfully ostracized and excluded from the LGBTQ+ community by those within it. Bisexual people were viewed as 'dishonest'-- that they were fearful of being openly or 'fully' gay."

I think that as long as we let visitors of the article know about the contradictions reporting on the emergence of the term pansexuality where due, why it came about (inclusivity), and when it became popular (the 2010s, which saw the emergence of the pansexual pride flag), everything will be fine. Perhaps there isn't a contradiction because "emergence" is intended to reflect "development" rather than the term just being around and used on occasion. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI that the main page could face a rush of edits in the future

I was reading an article in PinkNews recently, titled "Wikipedia faces huge backlash after saying pansexuality and bisexuality are the same thing," and claiming "The pansexuality entry is also locked, meaning most users are unable to edit the information. PinkNews has approached Wikipedia for comment." Also, this is a total lie, as the page is NOT locked (its only semi-protected to stop vandalism) and hasn't been since the article was published on Sept. 3. I haven't seen any rush of comments since this article was published, from looking at the history of the main page, and I would hope that those people who say the page is doing the "wrong" thing add comments here on the talk page, so the main page can be improved, rather than edits on the main page which get reversed. I think it unfortunate that PinkNews would get this so wrong, but that's a whole other discussion. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Bisexuality got hit much harder. Seems to have mostly trickled off but more eyes there would be helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. Interesting that bisexuality got hit harder even though the article I linked above specifically linked to this page... I kinda wish PinkNews would stop publishing articles like that, but alas, they did. That's just the type of publication they are. Sometimes you really just have to take what they say with a grain of sand.Historyday01 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

biphobic language and inaccurate information

Multiple places on this page contradict the bisexual page, often outright stating the bisexual means attraction to male and female and not even including the more popular definition of ‘your gender and other genders’ at all. As other discussions have pointed out, the language used here is not well considered. Much of it offensive to many in the bisexual community, which already gets a lot of hate from the pan community over these exact misconceptions, all of which are directly contradictory to the bisexual page. Please remedy this. 98.176.218.211 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y". Firefangledfeathers 18:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is worth talking about, but a COI edit request is not the tool for this use. Could you recommend a specific place where language should be changed or added? What sources support the change? Firefangledfeathers 18:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What you've said is the predicament that comes with the definitions used for both terms. This has resulted in the infighting. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Omnisexual =/= Pansexual?

Should there not be a separate Wikipedia article for the term 'omnisexual' that does not just redirect to 'pansexual'? Identifying as omnisexual is different from identifying as pansexual - at least from my understanding - because usually being pansexual means that you do not distinguish between different genders in terms of attraction, whereas being omnisexual does indicate that different genders evoke different feelings of attraction. Therefore, omnisexual should at least be explained as a separate term from pansexual in the Pansexuality article, and probably have its own article too. 72.75.214.49 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on authoritative sources. If you have a relevant source that supports your claim, you're free to add it yourself or ask others on how to implement it.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, its my understanding that omnisexual is a synonym of pansexual, which is why it is reflected the way it is on this page.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The term is relatively new enough that it hasn't been well defined and documented by authoritative sources. While I have personally have seen some difference in social circles, there are not enough authoritative sources at this time that distinguish the terms. We might see this distinction written about in a few years— if there is truly a major difference. Until then, it's just not able to be separated. (Granted, if you could provide authoritative sources on the subject, it could be included sooner.) JE215 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. When I looked it up in Merriam-Webster, it says it is a synonym of pansexual, with Dictionary.com and Online Etymology Dictionary, and even Wikitionary saying they are the same, and UNC is calling it a "related term" to bisexual. Some sources like QZ, a Cosmopolitan article, Affinity, Lexico, and Shape magazine seem to point to omnisexual being different, while Collins Dictionary has different pages for "omnisexual" and "pansexual" but I don't think that's enough to show that "Omnisexual" should have its own page. Perhaps it could have a line on the main page, but I don't think there's enough for "omnisexual" to have its own page.Historyday01 (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yxurbi13. Peer reviewers: Gegill16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellis414. Peer reviewers: Tic Tag Tow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sjimenez38013. Peer reviewers: TranElliott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rginsburg21. Peer reviewers: Torrey T.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 15 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JE215.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

Take out 'pansexuality can be used interchangeably with omnisexuality' and make the difference between them clearer (pansexuality is 'gender-blind' while in omnisexuality the attraction is affected by gender). LilacSnake (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That source does not seem reliable enough to make the change without consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly and I looked this up before and never found any solid sources distinguishing the two, apart from this one, but clearly not enough to incorporate into the page. And I'm a bit wary about the Medicinenet source noted by LilacSnake as it has no citations. In fact, on this same page, I looked into this back in December (see the above discussion entitled "Omnisexual =/= Pansexual?") and didn't find anything conclusive. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Suggestion to change, “Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary,[2][7] it is considered by some to be a more inclusive term than bisexual” to “Because pansexual people are also open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality explicitly rejects the gender binary,[2][7] it is considered by some to be a more linguistically inclusive term than bisexual”. Some people think bi means strictly men and women with no room for intersex and non-binary people. This is false, however the word bisexual predates a mainstream understanding of non-binary sex and gender. Language and society don’t always move at the same pace. For example, there still isn’t a non gendered version of sir/ma’am, so it’s impossible to be properly polite to a non-binary person. Some people choose to identify as pan to avoid ignorant assumptions about them. Pan people are not biphobic, but people who insist that pan and bi people are different are. The definitions are the same, but the linguistic implications to someone without context to work with are different. 74.96.66.16 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Glancing at the archive it appears that the section you wish to alter in particular has been discussed before, hence my hesitation to move forward with this request. —Sirdog (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I identify as bisexual because I am attracted to men and women. I don't identify as pansexual because I'm not generally attracted to androgynous or non-binary people. That makes me bi-phobic? Walkersam (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that the OP here is merely very confused in what they are saying. There definitely are people invested in stirring up artificial enmity between bi and pan people but we need to avoid taking that noise too seriously or assuming ill intent where it may just be confusion. That said, our OP here is very much incorrect when they say that there is no difference between being bi and being pan and that people choose the label pan solely for optics. That claim erases pan people and is not one we can entertain on either a factual or a moral basis. The difference between bi and pan people is not who they are attracted to but how. A bi person's attraction is gendered and a pan person's attraction is not. That is a real distinction and I do feel that the article does loose the wood for the trees a bit in explaining this. I think the talk of which is more inclusive is a divisive distraction. It is not any sort of phobic to not be attracted to certain types of people. It only becomes phobic if one treats people unfairly or unequally as a result. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the Bisexual manifesto. Bi in the context of bisexuality has basically at all times been homosexual and heterosexual attraction, and this definition has long been accepted by a majority of the community since before that manifesto was published in 1990. 73.32.82.207 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cerade (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Allisonrdorman.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Original research

@Historyday01: You seem to not understand how articles on the English Wikipedia are supposed to be written; allow me to explain. As we can see form your reversion of my reversion of your removal of a maintenance tag, you first need to understand the concept of verifiability and how (quoting from the policy):

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

I, by adding the maintenance tag {{Original research section}} challenged the statements in that section, and if you read the tag you would see it requests citations. Until such citations are added, or other suitable alterations are made to the section, the tag must remain in place.

You have now added more uncited information sourced from another article (as you have stated yourself) without giving proper attribution to the source you copied from (yes; even if from another wikipedia article), but the maintenance tag is still required as there are still no citations.

You should also be aware that there are rules about conduct regarding multiple reverts and it is common best practice to follow the guidance of bold, revert, discuss, not to simply bulldoze your opinions through without respect for your fellow editors. I look forward to you fixing the errors you have made – quickly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but this is not the appropriate forum for this, especially since the section is removed and I do not have the heart in me to try and attempt to bring back that section. It seems like a lost cause to me, as it will just get tagged with the same issues, and I really don't have time to fix it, nor do I have the appetite to do things quickly. If another editor wants to re-add the section, something which I'd support, they can do so. The better place for this discussion would be Talk:Media portrayal of pansexuality (where I replied to your comment more there), and I have already mentioned you there. Sorry for being a bit hasty and prickly before, but this is an important topic for me, and I can get defensive at times. Historyday01 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Symbol

Do we have any examples of this symbol in use, information about its history, etc.? Personally, I haven't seen it elsewhere, and I'm wary of graphics claiming to be the symbol of [insert queer identity here]. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like the symbol was created by a user only this fall, and it doesn't note any history, or information about its use. I'd say it should be removed, and the pansexual flag should be put there instead. Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This article from a magazine ENTITY Mag with apparent editorial oversight has featured the symbol since 2017 (at least certainly since this archive from 2019), both predating the creation of the SVG. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The only issue with that image is that it isn't the same as the svg, which makes me think that user who uploaded it, just changed that version, then claimed it was their own work? Or, maybe they are the person who created the original version shown in Entity Magazine? I'm not sure. Historyday01 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt Entity made it up then someone copied it from them and uploaded to wikimedia commons. There's another being used on wiktionary.

A Google image search is kinda funny, as it looks a lot like the new symbol for the Russian ruble, but not completely helpful. I'm buried in music editing for a while, so am just taking little breaks and poking the internet about this; I'm sure a concentrated effort would reveal some history somewhere, which I'm happy to do later (there's no rush), if you're not up for it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: as you created/uploaded both these images, could you provide any information about their history? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I just copied what we had on Commons so that we'd have a version that would match the other symbols.

The original file was uploaded on 11 August 2007 by user:Iamiyouareyou, who it appears is no longer active. user:Rosemarius, who it appears was only active on WP to post this symbol. This one is "my own work" in the sense that I created this particular file. I don't claim to have invented the symbol. — kwami (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback kwami :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So it seems we have files going back to at least 2007:

• File:Pansexual symbol.PNG, 11 August 2007, Rosemarius
• File:Pansexual pride symbol.png, 3 September 2010, Iamiyouareyou
• File:Pansexual symbol.png, 2 March 2015, Ashsepticeye, stated source
• File:Pansexual symbol.svg, 22 September 2018, Weegaweek
• File:Pansexual tri-colored symbol.svg, 10 June 2021, Sennecaster, derived from Ashsepticeye's (2015) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

...actually predating the flag O_o Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh, so it was created by Rosemarius for use on Wikipedia... Arguably WP:CIRCULAR but given that it has some use outside Wikipedia I'd be fine keeping it. Still wish we could have the flag be the first illustration in the infobox… ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source from 2009 for the symbol. But it could be older. Xdtp (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xdtp: appears to be a self published source not about itself so would be considered unreliable :(

@Madeline: We have one reliable source (so far) that it's symbolic for pansexuality, but without at least some more and heavier hitting sources, I'd be inclined to ignore it and just use the flag which has more good sources than we'd ever need, then add a duly-weighted note about the symbol in the article body. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made the change. If the symbol is to be mentioned in the article, it should be presented with due weight (which is very little) and therefore only after the flag (which has comparatively enormous weight) is properly discussed, which it currently isn't – at all. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary has an entry at wikt:Unsupported_titles/Pansexual, and it was added to a navbox I created. I'll remove it from the latter and let people know that it's a WP creation. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Note also this edit, where the creator Rosemarius explained what they had done. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that's a much better photo than the symbol and works much better for the page. Historyday01 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

we could readd the symbol, not showing it as main sign. there's a reliable non-English source, from LGBT symbol. Xdtp (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have a reliable English source (Entity; see earlier) that explicitly states that the symbol represents pansexuality from 2017, predating the subscription only, 2020, Portuguese source that doesn't appear to explicitly state the symbol is representative (using Google Translate on an archive copy (defeating the need for subscription), I find only one mention of "symbol" in text, and it refers to the flag). The fact that we only have these two sources and we can fairly certainly say that the symbol originated on commons is enough to just not bother with it as being of dubious validity and rather un-notable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Potentially misleading terminology in lead paragraph

"Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, [...], is considered by some to be a more inclusive term than bisexual." The way this phrase is structured is misleading. As it is, it implies that bisexual people cannot be attracted by someone who doesn't identify as a man or woman, which isn't true. (Source: in the bisexual manifesto it is clearly stated that "Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or dougamous in nature" and later on "In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders") While I'm not denying that some bisexual individuals are not attracted to non-binary, genderfluid or other gender identities, bisexuality as a whole does not require someone to identify as "strictly a man or woman" to be the object of attraction of a bisexual person. I would suggest a phrasing that emphasizes more the difference between gendered attraction and ungendered attraction such as "While both bisexual and pansexual people are open to relationships with people whose identity does not fall into the gender binary, since the term pansexual emphasizes semantically the rejection of the gender binary, it is considered by some to be a more inclusive term than bisexual. "

(Of course this opinion is biased as I identify as bisexual while being attracted to more than just man and woman identifying folks) 82.58.84.36 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This new study may be useful as well. I believe it can be reworded. The bisexual manifesto doesn't say anything about non-bisexual plurisexual/multisexual identities. The article compares both as they overlap, but situationally, bisexuality is polysemous, so I believe sometimes that wording isn't at all wrong. Xdtp (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind that the lead section should be a summary of the subject as summarized from sources in the article body, and as such should neither need inline references or be reliant upon them (if the statements aren't sourced in the article body, they shouldn't be in the lead, whether sourced or not). These are of course ideals and there are edge cases (mainly very short articles), but we should always strive for featured article quality, and it's perhaps a good idea to tidy the lead we currently have, in line with MOS:LEAD and the body and lead with WP:SUMMARY, before getting in too deep with the wording as is. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Respect

I would like to remove the phrase "someone named" in the second to last paragraph under History of the Term. Saying the flag was "designed by someone named Jasper Varney" adds no information and feels highly unprofessional. The use of the phrase serves only to create the feeling that Varney lacked some kind of supposed qualifications that would be a prerequisite for designing a flag, which feels like an underhanded move to discredit their work. It is unnecessary and disrespectful and changes none of the actual information presented to remove the two words. 76.78.140.92 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done I'm sure no disrespect was intended; these things happen; we all try. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)