Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Undue weight to sexual, biological aspects

Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience. Others have had homosexual experiences but do not consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.^[13] Likewise, self-identified gay or lesbian individuals may occasionally sexually interact with members of the opposite sex but do not identify as bisexual.

I'm not sure if I'm retreading an old argument here, but it seems like this article gives a great deal of weight to sexual attraction without giving much more than lip service to aspects of identity or romantic attraction. This section in particular has the unfortunate connotation of implying that sexual experience is a "gold standard" in determining identity - as if biological response in bed is the central factor which usually indicates the sexual attractions people wish to seek out. I think that approach ignores a great deal of the social aspects of bisexuality. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lunar Jesters. No, you are not "retreading an old argument here." However, I don't see how there is WP:Undue weight with regard to the "sexual, biological" aspects. The topic of bisexuality is certainly mostly a sexual topic. And the quote you cite above comes from a section (meaning its subsections as well) that gives a lot of weight to identity. For example, before the "Some individuals identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual without having had any sexual experience." text, there is the "Sexual attraction, behavior and identity may also be incongruent, as sexual attraction or behavior may not necessarily be consistent with identity." text. I'm not sure what social aspects of bisexuality you are looking to include. But whether they should be included or not doesn't mean that the existing text should be removed; in fact, I consider those factors important to mention. They are there because they concern bisexuality and too often people equate sexual behavior with sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. I agree that there needs to be something in that section about people not needing to engage in sexual activity to know that they are bisexual. It is easy to go on Google Books and find such material. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there's a place for the biological component of sexuality, but social aspects are barely discussed within the section on definitions. Yes, that section mentions the concept of identity, but it primarily discusses how biological responses inform people's understanding of their sexuality. Sociologists and queer theorists have described how "bisexuality," as it's understood in public discourse, comes from the way people articulate their biological desires. For example, Lisa Diamond discusses this in her work on sexual fluidity. As it stands, the article relies on a common understanding of attraction as "sexual attraction as a precursor or always entwined with romantic attraction and practice." It provides little basis for understanding people (for example) who want to pursue deep romantic relationships with men, but who want to pursue casual, sexual relationships with women. Likewise, there's not a great deal of information here about the historical context of bisexuality - i.e., it's a relatively recent phenomenon that "bisexual" became an identity you labeled yourself as, instead of something you DID. We might call the very intense, intimate friendships men had with other men in the 1800s a sign of bisexuality, for instance. These are all cogent parts of what we group into "bisexuality," and it seems a shame that most of this article concerns various physiological tests used to find the cause of bisexuality. (And then there's the overlong "in media" section, of course.) I just don't think we need so many paragraphs about hormones and penile plethysmograph testing, given the depth of what bisexuality as a whole covers. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which material in particular do you object to? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The latter two paragraphs of the "label accuracy" section - it positions the legitimacy of bisexuality as tied primarily to the methodology of one lab experiment, and spends far too much space describing that study's news coverage. Then there's everything below "social factors" in the "studies, theories, and social responses" section, which places a hodgepodge of biologically informed theories of the origin of bisexuality together and spends far too long elaborating on individual studies. I'd like to see that section trimmed down to two or three paragraphs, and I'd like to see an expansion of the "social factors" section to about the same length. (The opening section of the theories section is pretty unwieldy, too, especially since it quotes the necessity for a holistic view before proceeding into a series of disconnected ideas.) --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Lisa Diamond; her studies and theories, like other researchers, have support and non-support. We need to be careful about giving undue weight to individual researchers' beliefs. If you look at the "Studies, theories and social responses" section, there is some material there supporting some of what you want included. For example, it includes the "Research indicates that bisexuality is influenced by biological, cognitive and cultural variables in interaction, and this leads to different types of bisexuality. In the current debate around influences on sexual orientation, biological explanations have been questioned by social scientists, particularly by feminists who encourage women to make conscious decisions about their life and sexuality." text. And Marjorie Garber is mentioned at the end of that section as arguing that most people would be bisexual if not for repression and other factors such as lack of sexual opportunity; here is what that text used to state.

I encourage you to start adding some of the material you want included. I don't agree with any removal on the sexual, biological material, except for tweaking the text, material that is redundant or material that is WP:Undue weight. I completely disagree with removal of two of the three paragraphs in the Label accuracy section, for reasons that were already addressed in the Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited" discussion. That is some important information to address in this article, considering that it tackles prominent misconceptions about bisexuality and that study is cited as the biggest biphobic study to date; a lot of people still use that study to claim that bisexuality, especially male bisexuality, does not exist. Read the previous discussion I linked to about that matter. On a side note: The Media section actually isn't too long. It simply looks that way because of all the subheadings. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that that passage pays lip service to the "interaction" of these variables, but doesn't expand upon that idea. The masculinization section, for instance, presents research into the biological cause of sexuality as uncontroversial: which certainlyisn't the case, nor is the opposition to the methodology of that research relegated to fringe thinkers. Garber is a wonderful thinker, but I believe she's primarily a figure in media studies and literature. (Her writing could add some definition to the "Literature" section in the media section, though.)

And that makes sense in regards to the study - I'll try to clean up the prose around it so the significance of that study in public thought becomes more obvious. But I have to disagree with the Media section: why is it necessary to have a "Webseries" section? Why are there so many accounts of bisexual musical personalities that don't describe the significance of the person's coming out in society as a whole? (The information on Bowie is excellent, however.) Why is the section on Torchwood so long - is its depiction of bisexuality more important than every film involving bisexuality ever produced? Given that there's a child article, the section as a whole seems awfully granular. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 01:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By "that passage," do you mean the latter two paragraphs in the Label accuracy section? If so, what "expand[ing] upon that idea" do you mean? Or do you mean what I cited with regard to the "Studies, theories and social responses" section (not the Garber part)? It seems that you mean the latter of my queries.

Yes, the Media section could use some cuts and cleanup. I just don't feel that it's too long, per what I stated above about it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "child article"? The Child sexuality article? Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Or the Media portrayals of bisexuality article as a "child article"? Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my response got a bit muddled. By "that passage" I mean the section you cited which begins with "Research indicates...", which seems to "tell, not show" that these factors are holistically related. And by "child article", I'm referring to Media portrayals of bisexuality. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 12:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My main reaction to this article was also that it seems so focused on sexual attraction, as opposed to romantic. It is mentioned in the beginning that romantic attraction is/can be part of the definition, but then most of the article mention little about it. I am no expert in this area, so I don't know, perhaps there is simply few studies etc done about infatuation and romantic love in relation to identifying as bisexual? It seems to me a reasonable question at least, to ask whether some of those who feel attraction to another gender, or even engage in sex with a person of a gender, that is not typical to their self-identified sexual orientation, might identify that way due to not feeling romantic love, or infatuation for that gender, as an example. I don't know enough to add anything in the article about this myself, so this is just a wish, if someone who does could perhaps add some more info on the romantic attraction/infatuation-aspect of bisexuality, which is what I am most curious about and wished to read about when I came to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.95.57 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IP. The article is "so focused on sexual attraction, as opposed to romantic" because the literature is. This goes for the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles as well. Also, romantic attraction is usually tied into sexual attraction. This is clear by sources on romantic attraction and the fact that "romantic orientation" and "sexual orientation" are usually used interchangeably. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

I've removed a couple of pictures that were recently added to this article. My edit summaries came out rather garbled and confused, but hopefully it should be clear what the reasons for removing those pictures were: 1) We should not be including pictures of any particular person without a good reason for including pictures of that particular person, and 2) We cannot make unsourced statements about a person's sexual orientation, per WP:BLP. Doing that is still unacceptable even if the article about the person backs up the statement about their sexuality - Wiki articles can't use other articles as sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: FreeKnowledgeCreator is referring to this, this, this and this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The existence of bisexuality as a sexual orientation questioned in another study

Should we include information about this latest study in the article? The aforementioned The Huffington Post source is titled Bisexuality Not Deemed A 'Legitimate Sexual Orientation' By Heterosexual Men, Women: University Of Pittsburgh Study. Despite its title, it also discusses gay men and lesbians doubting that bisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation. We already include information in this article about people doubting the existence of bisexuality (the sexual orientation, considering that bisexual behavior is clearly observable), but perhaps this study is worth a mention as well? Here is a CBS News source also talking about the study, and of course other news outlets have as well. Perhaps it would fit best in the Biphobia article, or is putting it there non-neutral in a way (with regard to those who feel that not every debate about this matter should be categorized as biphobic)? Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the primary focus of the article should be scientific. I'm not sure that it's really helpful to mention a study showing that random, unqualified persons who happened to be heterosexual doubted the existence of bisexuality as a "legitimate sexual orientation", whatever that means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I think by doubting that bisexuality as a "legitimate sexual orientation" means that people dont think that bisexuality is a real sexuality. Flyer22 did not say that those who participated in the study were all heterosexual but also lesbians and homosexuals. Flyer22: I am bisexual and I class that as biphobic so I think it should go in the biphobic article. Stormy Nights (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant point is that those disputing the "legitimacy" of bisexuality didn't have any relevant credentials. It's not important what their personal sexual preferences might be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Dispute Resolution might be necessary: Pansexuality

In response to my edits of the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section on 9 April 2014, User:Flyer22 reverted, explaining: "disagree. This was already discussed on the talk page. And the paragraph is not contradicted by the Pansexuality article; there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality among scholars." I disagree. I researched the topic by searching peer-reviewed journal articles in the following databases: PsycBOOKS, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX with Full Text, and MEDLINE Complete. I found no evidence for a consensus opinion among sexuality scholars that "there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality". Should we seek a third opinion? Or perhaps we can hash it out and reach a consensus ourselves? --Mark D Worthen PsyD 11:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Markworthen, WP:Dispute resolution should generally only be sought after trying to work the matter out here on the talk page. This matter has already been worked out, in more than one area on Wikipedia, including the WP:Fringe noticeboard. Like I stated before, now shown at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#Pansexuality: Most researchers certainly don't use the term pansexuality. And goodness knows I have done what I can to keep it from being listed as a sexual orientation on Template:Sexual orientation (it's there now, but not as a sexual orientation). See this statement made by me during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for backstory on that. But also see the Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#Why is Pansexuality talked about in the description? discussion, and the two discussions following that for why mention of pansexuality is in the lead. Though bisexuality is most commonly defined as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to two sexes (male and female)/two genders (men and women), and is defined in only that way by the authoritative scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, enough sources define bisexuality as romantic and/or sexual attraction to "more than one gender" or "irrespective of gender," and, in some cases, "all sexes/genders." And that is exactly the definition of pansexuality. If we are going to mention in this article the other way that bisexuality is defined, which we should, we might as well call it by the term that has been assigned to it -- pansexuality. It doesn't make sense to me to mention the alternative definition of bisexuality without mentioning the term pansexuality. Additionally, mentioning pansexuality in the lead complies with WP:LEAD, considering that it is a significant aspect of the bisexuality topic and is covered in the Definitions section; its inclusion in the lead also allows for a compromise with people who apply the term bisexuality more loosely than how it is most commonly defined. And in this way...the lead is WP:Neutral on the topic and generally helps keep this kind of edit, which leads to this, this, this, this, this and this, from happening.

A lot more on this topic is addressed in that now archived discussion. So if you searched "PsycBOOKS, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX with Full Text, and MEDLINE Complete" and "found no evidence for a consensus opinion among sexuality scholars that 'there is generally no distinguishing bisexuality from pansexuality,"' it's because scholars generally do not have anything to state about pansexuality; sexual attraction to "more than one gender" is almost always defined as bisexuality among scholars; the sources used in the Bisexuality article to address pansexuality are a reflection of that. See WP:Fringe; I object to any WP:Fringe presentation of pansexuality, which, in this case, means presenting it as completely distinct from bisexuality and that it is generally considered a sexual orientation among scholars. When it is discussed among scholars, it's usually discussed as an alternative label to indicate bisexuality or in a different way than its more modern definition (sexual attraction to more than one sex/gender); it's often discussed in relation to how it was originally defined or in some other way (usually in relation to some disorder topic), as shown by this link on Google Scholar. And Googling "pansexuality" or "pansexual" on Google Books, as shown here and here, does not show too much of an improvement with regard to discussing the term, especially among experts in the field of sexuality/sexology as opposed to simply authors.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Pansexuality" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For reference to the edits edits made between you and me on this matter, here are all the diff-links so far:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].

And of course I recently stated more to you on this topic at the Pansexuality article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Markworthen and I did settle the above the matter, as acknowledged here at his talk page. Also, like I noted with this edit, I changed the order of the second definition, making it a part of the first sentence, though I considered simply making it the second sentence and I might still do that; I rearranged the order because it may help to (is very likely to help) stop people from removing the primary definition (sexual/romantic attraction to males and females/men and women) and enable them to better see that we clearly do acknowledge the second definition (the one covered by pansexuality). It's usually IPs messing with the definitions, which is partly why the article is currently WP:Semi-protected (see here) via my request at WP:Requests for page protection. My followup edits are here and here. My order change resembles what I did here at the LGBT stereotypes article after reverting this and then tweaking the matter here and here. I didn't use "or" for the Bisexuality article, because, per WP:Due weight, I believe that its first sentence should be clearer that the binary definition is the primary definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Update I changed my mind about "or" for the Bisexuality article, as noted in the #Definition of Bisexuality section below. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe some of the issue here is a more subtle difference than simply the fact that the second listed definition includes more than just two genders. As you can see clearly in the article for Panseixality, a significant, and by some definitions necessary, aspect of the pansexual identity is being attracted to all genders *regardless* or gender or sex. So while pansexuals fall under this second, looser definition of bisexual, they still are not exactly the same. I would propose the following change.

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity; this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity. Thefoxyfox (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing about bisexuality and the pansexuality definition, which was also worked out in the #Definition of Bisexuality section below, is that it is true that bisexuality may be defined essentially the same way that pansexuality is defined or that it may be considered the same thing as pansexuality. I realize that you view them as not being the same thing, but the point of noting the two is to make it clear that bisexuality may be defined in a binary way or non-binary way, and that this non-binary way is essentially pansexuality. The "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" wording gets that across without adding "which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity." I think that your suggested add is unnecessarily verbose. Plus, readers can read the definitions portion of the article or click on the Pansexuality article for more detail. Keep in mind that some definitions of bisexuality use the words "regardless of" as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone define bisexuality to mean the same as pansexuality. The issue is that bisexuality can be defined to encompass pansexuality. Regardless of if bisexuality is defined as "two" genders/sexes or "multiple/any", it is still more broad than the most common definition of pansexuality, which "requires" attraction to "all" genders "regardless" of gender. I agree it is fine to include both the binary and non binary definitions of bisexuality (and by proposed revision did so). My issue is the non-binary way is not ″essentially pansexuality″. It is a broad definition that encompasses all of the binary definition of bisexuality "and" pansexuality, along with others who do not meet the binary definition "or" the definition of pansexuality.

″romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity″ is the nonbinary definition of bisexuality. ″any″ is not the same as ″all″. That's the issue here. If you think my proposed revision is too wordy, then you could remove the portion about pansexuality entirely, or cut off the ″which explicitly...″ part, but I think it works well as it is. Alternatively, consider the following (with or without the pansexuality bit)

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or romantic or sexual attraction to that is not limited to a single sex or gender identity; this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity.

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or romantic or sexual attraction to people of two or more sexes or gender identities; this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity.

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or romantic or sexual attraction to people of more than just one sex or gender identity; this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity.

--Thefoxyfox (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You stated that you haven't seen anyone define bisexuality to mean the same as pansexuality. Well, there have many past arguments on the Pansexuality talk page with people arguing just that -- that they are the same thing. I've seen LGBT people in real life argue it. I've argued it to some degree, per the literature. Look at the sources I've provided on the matter, including the ones in this section of the Pansexuality article, where some of them argue that pansexuality is bisexuality. And that includes the American Institute of Bisexuality. As for the rest, I'm just not seeing the issue that you are seeing. As for your proposals, I could agree to "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity." But not "this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity."

Using "or romantic or sexual attraction to that is not limited to a single sex or gender identity" is not that different than the definition of bisexuality since bisexuality is about being sexually attracted to more than just one sex or gender identity. Stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of two or more sexes or gender identities" or "of more than just one sex or gender identity" can be confusing since it could be taken to mean that the people are of two sexes or two gender identities, as in intersex or genderqueer...when pansexuality is about "regardless of their sex or gender identity." The people don't have to be intersex or genderqueer. "Regardless of their sex or gender identity" is the wording we currently use for the lead (beginning) sentence of the Pansexuality article as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think you're confusing the statements "Bisexuality is exactly the same as pansexuality" and "Pansexuality is a type of bisexuality". You yourself motioned the American Institute of Bisexuality. Their definition, "A bi person’s romantic and/or sexual attractions are not limited to one sex". That is not exactly the same as pansexuality. It includes people who are attracted to only attracted to men and women but not non binary people. It also includes people who have the capacity to be attracted to any gender, but for whom gender has a significant effect on their attraction. It also includes people who are pansexual. Therefore this second definition is not interchangeable with "pansexual" anymore than "vegan" and "vegetarian" are interchangeable. I still stand by the statement that I haven't heard anyone argue that bisexual means exactly the same thing as pansexuality (that is, that bisexual people by definition are attracted to ALL genders and sexes regardless of gender identity, or that people who aren't attracted to non-binary people aren't bisexual). --Thefoxyfox (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources. I assure you that I'm not confusing anything. Read what I stated to Mark D Worthen PsyD above, if you haven't already. Look at the links I included when responding to him. And check out Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 1 or Talk:Pansexuality/Archive 2 if you want to see people stating that bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing, or Google the matter. It's true that bisexuality and pansexuality are either considered the same thing or they are distinguished. Yes, for some, considering bisexuality and pansexuality to be the same thing includes "pansexuality is a considered a type of bisexuality." All of this is made abundantly clear in the "Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution" book by Shiri Eisner, which is used in the Pansexuality article. I have been over the literature back and forth. I am well aware that "pansexuality is a considered a type of bisexuality"; I argued this above, and below with sources in the #Definition of Bisexuality section (my "23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)" post). This "Sex and Society" source (page 593) that we use in both the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles quite clearly states, "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality, which refers to attraction to individuals of both sexes, although there are many differences." The American Institute of Bisexuality quite clearly states, "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." In that source, that organization goes out of its way to go against the perceived division between bisexuality and pansexuality.

Here at Wikipedia, we go by what the sources state, which is why I reverted you on this. I also reverted you on this because of the wording and because there was no agreement on it. The "in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all" is you engaging in WP:Editorializing; by that, I mean you were adding your unsourced interpretation. Also, "at all" was not not needed...at all. Please wait until we have agreed on wording, and do not WP:Edit war.

I messed up on considering your proposals. The "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" piece is already in the lead; so that was not your proposal. You stated that ″any″ is not the same as ″all″. "That's the issue here." But I do not see that "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" is different than "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of all sexes or gender identities," except for the aforementioned confusing aspect of the latter with regard to a person being of all sexes or all genders. "Any" is quite literally stating "all"; it's stating that any person of any sex or gender is included. It's not different than me stating "Anyone is invited to my birthday party." to mean "Everyone is invited to my birthday party." Well, unless a person is thinking that "everyone" literally means "everyone in the world." I don't view "any" as binary in this bisexuality/pansexuality case. And here's why: First of all, the vast majority of intersex people identify as one sex, not two, and this is not only due to what the DNA tests indicate, but also due to gender identity; most intersex people simply identify as male/man or as female/woman. And in the case of a person who is genderqueer, "gender" still applies; there is no need to state "genders," just as there is no need to state "gender identities." You can simply ask a genderqueer person what their gender is; there is no need to state: "What are your genders?" Singular use does not automatically equate to "binary."

I suggest we change "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" to "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders," which is similar to the "all genders and sexualities" wording that the "Sex and Society" source uses. It's better that we don't state "all genders and sexualities," since we want to make biological sex clear as well, and since "all sexualities" isn't really part of the criteria. The "Sex and Society" source, for example, makes it clear that "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." Using "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders" also takes away the "people of" concern I had. We don't need to state "people of." Readers will understand that we are talking about people. So do you agree to using "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders"? And, yes, per the sources, we should retain "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

All of your first paragraph seems to be agreeing with me. I'm not suggesting that bisexual and pansexuality are mutually exclusive. I agree exactly with how The American Institute of Bisexuality stated it, and I don't think the current state of the article reflects that. It seems to be stating that pansexual is always interchangeable with this second definition. Bisexuality including the possibility of being attracted to non-binary genders(i.e. not excluding those who are attracted to non-binary genders), does not "render it interchangeable" with pansexuality, which excludes people who *aren't* attracted to non-binary genders.

Regarding the "any" vs "all" distinction, I think I can explain it quite clearly. "Any" leaves room for people who aren't attracted to all genders, but are still attracted to multiple genders. In this example it's the distinction between "Check 'Yes' if any of the following are true" and "Check 'Yes' if all of the following are true". I don't think 'any' is binary either. Everything you wrote about intersex and genderqueer people is pretty unrelated to the point I'm trying to make, so I think you must be misunderstanding the issue I have with the current wording.

I don't agree with using "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders", because that makes the second definition exclusive of the first definition. The point of the second definition is that it includes people who aren't exclusively attracted to men and women, but it shouldn't simultaneously exclude people who are. It should be inclusive of "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders" and "sexual attraction to men and women". Perhaps a better wording would be "at least two", "more than one", or "multiple". The point is, there is a second definition for a reason. It is to include people who are attracted to more than just men and women in addition to people who are only attracted to men and women. Pansexuality explicitly excludes people who are only attracted to men and women, and thus is not interchangeable with this second definition. I think the AIB's statement "A bi person’s romantic and/or sexual attractions are not limited to one sex" is great. Perhaps we can agree on this:

'Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender.'

Then if pansexuality is to be mentioned, it would follow that: "This latter aspect is also termed pansexuality in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all", or maybe "This latter definition includes pansexuality", --Thefoxyfox (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how all of my first paragraph is agreeing with you when you were arguing that bisexuality and pansexuality are not the same thing and/or you have not seen anyone call them the same thing and when I was arguing that not only are they commonly viewed as being the same thing, they are defined the same way often enough. Bisexuality first and foremost means "sexual attraction two sexes and genders: male and female/men and women," but there has been a shift in the bisexual community and literature to make it clear that bisexuality can mean "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" or "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders." In fact, some sources equate "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity " with "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders." Both of these definitions are used to define pansexuality, and, like I stated, we use the "regardless of" wording for the Pansexuality article. So, yes, pansexuality and bisexuality are defined to mean the same thing often enough. I'll list sources below showing this. You stated, "Regardless of if bisexuality is defined as 'two' genders/sexes or 'multiple/any', it is still more broad than the most common definition of pansexuality, which 'requires' attraction to 'all' genders 'regardless' of gender." But more than enough sources simply state "regardless of" without using "all." And because of this, and because the Pansexuality article uses "regardless of" without "all" for its lead sentence, I now suggest we change "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality" to "or romantic or sexual attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." Would you be okay with this wording?

I don't understand what you mean by "It seems to be stating that pansexual is always interchangeable with this second definition." The sentence uses the word sometimes. Sometimes hardly translates to all. I still don't understand your objection to "any." Nor do I understand your objection to using "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders" without using "people of." But, like suggested above, I think that "regardless of their sex or gender identity" is a good alternative. Stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is also termed pansexuality in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all" is overkill, I don't like the flow of "at all," and it's not what the sources state. I'm trying to stick to what the sources state. Stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality" is better. I could agree to that even though I prefer my "regardless of" suggestion. Can you? The reason I don't use the American Institute of Bisexuality for an initial definition is because it is a charity organization and it is using its own opinions (such as the argument that pansexuals are bisexuals) more than it is relying on the literature. And, also, I already noted that the reason that I don't agree with using "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is because it "is not that different than the definition of bisexuality since bisexuality is about being sexually attracted to more than just one sex or gender identity."

Bisexuality defined as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, or in some other broader way.

1. This 2003 "Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences" source, from Columbia University Press, page 258, states, "Many bisexual-identified people prefer to conceptualize bisexuality as the ability to be attracted to people regardless of gender or to be attracted to people on the basis of a number of criteria, only one of which might be gender. Bisexuals, in this view, are not attracted to women and men but to people, whose gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction." 2. This 2006 "Assessing Race, Ethnicity and Gender in Health", from Springer, page 74. One definition states, "Equal: individuals who are attracted to individuals of both sexes or who are attracted to people regardless of their sex." 3. This 2014 "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges" source, from Routledge, page 145, states, "There has been a move away from speaking of attraction to both genders, and toward attraction regardless of gender." 4.This 2015 "Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories" source, from Springer, page 21, states, "Some of the contributors to the UK bisexuality research used other identities instead of, or as well as, bisexual, including 'pansexual' and 'queer'. The organized UK bisexual community has been strongly influenced by the increase in visibility of transgender and gender-diverse people (see Chapter 4), so that overall there has been a shift within the community modelling bisexuality as being about attraction to people of all genders rather than just men and women." 5. This 2016 "Researching Non-Heterosexual Sexualities" source, from Routledge, page 57, states, "Bisexuality (attraction to more than one gender, or regardless of gender)." 6. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from SAGE Publications, page 358, states, "The definition of bisexuality can vary, as some people define bisexuality in terms of being sexually attracted to only men and women (adhering to a gender binary), whereas other people define bisexuality much more broadly. In the interest of inclusivity, the definition used here is a broader definition. Specifically, bisexuality is a sexual identity that describes an individual who (a) has the capacity for sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one gender and (b) self-identifies as bisexual. [...] Similar to how the term queer is used as an umbrella term to capture the spectrum of sexual and gender minority identities, bisexuality is at times used as an umbrella for all non-monosexual sexual identities. [...]."

Pansexuality defined as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, mostly without using "all."

1. The aforementioned 2009 "Sex and Society" source states, page 593, "[The prefix pan] signifies that pansexuals believe that a person can develop physical attraction, love, and sexual desire for people regardless of their gender identity or biological sex." 2. This 2012 " Handbook of LGBT-Affirmative Couple and Family Therapy" source, from Routledge, page 409, states, "Someone who is attracted to people regardless of their sex or gender may identify as pansexual." 3. This 2015 "Sexual Identities and the Media: An Introduction" source, from Routledge, page 11, states, "Pansexual: Sometimes referred to as omnisexual, pansexual describes an attraction to a person regardless of sex or gender." 4. This 2016 "The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care" source, from Springer, page, 89, states, "A person attracted to others regardless of their gender or gender expression." 5. This 2016 "Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives on Development and the Life Course" source, page 293, states, "[...] Terms such as pansexual are useful to describe the sexual orientation of people who describe themselves as having the capability of attraction to others regardless of gender identity or biological sex." 6. This 2017 "Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 289, states, "Pansexuals (panindividuals) so identify because they are attracted to individuals regardless of sex or gender identity and expression; they report being attracted to all genders and sexes." Note that a number of other sources define pansexuality this way as well, meaning usually without use of "all."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all I'll say that your proposed revision is still missing the mark for me. Excuse me for quoting you so much here, I'm just trying to make myself very clear. You said "Bisexuality first and foremost means 'sexual attraction two sexes and genders: male and female/men and women,' but there has been a shift in the bisexual community and literature to make it clear that bisexuality can mean 'sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity' or 'sexual attraction to all sexes and genders.'"

I don't believe this is the case. I would say there has been a shift in the bisexuality to make it clear that bisexuality can include such people, but not that that the word 'bisexual' can have that specific meaning. In other words, the shift changed the definition to include people attracted to more than just men and women, but not to exclude people who aren't.

Beyond that, I'm don't have an issue related to the difference between "regardless of" and "all". I think "regardless of" implies "all". The issue I have is that not all bisexuals experience attracted "regardless of" genders and sex, because it is not a requirement of how bisexuality is defined as it is for pansexuality. I'll elaborate on this in relation to your lists below.

Addressing your second paragraph, I don't have any objection to using "or romantic or sexual attraction to all sexes and genders" without using "of people". I only object to the use of "all" or "regardless of". I'm having trouble understanding your issue with "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" still. Perhaps you could clarify that?

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make here is that while some sources define bisexuality in a way that includes attraction regardless of gender, I'm not aware of any that require attraction regardless of gender and sex like pansexuality does. Therefore bisexuality is a broader definition. See the following:

Bisexuality defined as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, or in some other broader way.

1. This 2003 "Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences" source, from Columbia University Press, page 258, states, "Many bisexual-identified people prefer to conceptualize bisexuality as the ability to be attracted to people regardless of gender or to be attracted to people on the basis of a number of criteria, only one of which might be gender. Bisexuals, in this view, are not attracted to women and men but to people, whose gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction." This source says does not define bisexuality as being sexuality attracted to people regardless of gender, but rather as sexual attraction not limited to a single gender, and potential not limited by gender either. 2. This 2006 "Assessing Race, Ethnicity and Gender in Health", from Springer, page 74. One definition states, "Equal: individuals who are attracted to individuals of both sexes or who are attracted to people regardless of their sex." This source appears to be presenting a definition for the specific clarification "Equal bisexuality". See above on the page which includes other entires for other classifications. Thus, I would object to this being cited as a source for the definition of just "bisexuality" in general. 3. This 2014 "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges" source, from Routledge, page 145, states, "There has been a move away from speaking of attraction to both genders, and toward attraction regardless of gender." In this source, the author is making a rather general statement when they say "a move away from A toward B". They are in no way implying that the bisexual community is beginning to exclude people only attracted to men and women, but rather that it has grown to embrace the idea that gender doesn't necessarily have to play a factor at all. The information they draw this conclusion from, from the same page, does not state support the conclusion that this broader definition of bisexuality means attracter "regardless of" sex or gender, only that it can include such attraction. For instance: "Petford (2003) wrote that she found a consensus among the U.K. bi community (from publications and e-mail discussions) that bisexuality could be defined as "mutable sexual and emotional attraction to people of any sex, where gender may not be a defining factor"" In the there statements on the page, nobody makes the claim that bisexuality is attraction regardless of gender, only that it can include such attraction. 4.This 2015 "Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories" source, from Springer, page 21, states, "Some of the contributors to the UK bisexuality research used other identities instead of, or as well as, bisexual, including 'pansexual' and 'queer'. The organized UK bisexual community has been strongly influenced by the increase in visibility of transgender and gender-diverse people (see Chapter 4), so that overall there has been a shift within the community modelling bisexuality as being about attraction to people of all genders rather than just men and women." This same source states, on the following page, "This book uses the following definition of bisexuality: 'attraction to people of more than one gender', and the following definitions of bisex-uals: 'people who are attracted to other people who are of more than one gender'." Thus, this source does not support the idea that the broader definition bisexuality is attraction "regardless of" gender. Again, it is inclusive of such attraction, but it does not use it as a defining characteristic of bisexuality 5. This 2016 "Researching Non-Heterosexual Sexualities" source, from Routledge, page 57, states, "Bisexuality (attraction to more than one gender, or regardless of gender)." 6. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from SAGE Publications, page 358, states, "The definition of bisexuality can vary, as some people define bisexuality in terms of being sexually attracted to only men and women (adhering to a gender binary), whereas other people define bisexuality much more broadly. In the interest of inclusivity, the definition used here is a broader definition. Specifically, bisexuality is a sexual identity that describes an individual who (a) has the capacity for sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one gender and (b) self-identifies as bisexual. [...] Similar to how the term queer is used as an umbrella term to capture the spectrum of sexual and gender minority identities, bisexuality is at times used as an umbrella for all non-monosexual sexual identities. [...]."

As for the pansexuality definitions, they all include attraction "regardless of" sex or gender as a requirement of the definition, something that the sourced definitions of bisexuality lack. Many of the bisexuality definitions state bisexuals may be attracted regardless of sex or gender, but that is not the same. From this it's clear that the broader definition of bisexuality and the definition of pansexuality are not the same, and thus that the broader usage of the word "bisexual" is not interchangeable with or "alternatively termed" pansexuality. It includes the definition of pansexuality, but pansexuality is a demonstrably narrower definition. Saying "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." Is like saying "a rectangle is a quadrilateral with four right angles. Such shapes are sometimes alternatively termed 'squares'." It's missing the important fact that rectangles are only called squares "in the specific case that" all the sides are the same length.

Pansexuality defined as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, mostly without using "all."

1. The aforementioned 2009 "Sex and Society" source states, page 593, "[The prefix pan] signifies that pansexuals believe that a person can develop physical attraction, love, and sexual desire for people regardless of their gender identity or biological sex." 2. This 2012 " Handbook of LGBT-Affirmative Couple and Family Therapy" source, from Routledge, page 409, states, "Someone who is attracted to people regardless of their sex or gender may identify as pansexual." 3. This 2015 "Sexual Identities and the Media: An Introduction" source, from Routledge, page 11, states, "Pansexual: Sometimes referred to as omnisexual, pansexual describes an attraction to a person regardless of sex or gender." 4. This 2016 "The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care" source, from Springer, page, 89, states, "A person attracted to others regardless of their gender or gender expression." 5. This 2016 "Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives on Development and the Life Course" source, page 293, states, "[...] Terms such as pansexual are useful to describe the sexual orientation of people who describe themselves as having the capability of attraction to others regardless of gender identity or biological sex." 6. This 2017 "Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 289, states, "Pansexuals (panindividuals) so identify because they are attracted to individuals regardless of sex or gender identity and expression; they report being attracted to all genders and sexes." Note that a number of other sources define pansexuality this way as well, meaning usually without use of "all."

I hope you understand from this why I think 1. That using "all" or "regardless of" is less appropriate than "more than one" or "not limited to a single" and 2. That the definition of pansexuality is not exactly the same as the broader definition of bisexuality, but rather falls within it. --Thefoxyfox (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to understand you, but, no, I don't see how my "regardless of" proposed revision is missing the mark for you...when the sources are clear that bisexuality may be defined in the binary way or to mean sexual attraction to people regardless of gender or to all sexes and genders, and when these definitions are literally the definitions used to define pansexuality. I don't see how my "regardless of" proposed revision is missing the mark for you when we currently begin the lead sentence of the Pansexuality article by stating "regardless of their sex or gender identity." If anything, the Bisexuality article should be consistent in its definition of pansexuality.

You stated that you "don't believe [it is] the case" that there has been a shift in the bisexual community and literature to make it clear that bisexuality can mean "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" or "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders." And yet some sources I've included state exactly that. The "Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution" book by Shiri Eisner is very clear on it. The "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges" source states exactly, "There has been a move away from speaking of attraction to both genders, and toward attraction regardless of gender." Your interpretation of the source is simply your interpretation. For example, you argued that the source is "in no way implying that the bisexual community is beginning to exclude people only attracted to men and women." Well, I never argued that either. I argued that that there has been a shift in the bisexual community and literature to make it clear that bisexuality can mean "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" or "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders." And this source supports me on that. The "Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories" source also supports me on that. Your argument about how the book personally defines bisexuality does not negate the book noting the definitional shift of bisexuality. Your repeated insistence that the sources do not "support the idea that the broader definition bisexuality is attraction 'regardless of' gender" and that "it [rather] is inclusive of such attraction" goes against what the sources are stating. They literally note "regardless of" as a broader definition of bisexuality.

Of the "Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences" source, you stated, "This source says does not define bisexuality as being sexuality attracted to people regardless of gender, but rather as sexual attraction not limited to a single gender, and potential not limited by gender either." And yet the source specifically states, "Many bisexual-identified people prefer to conceptualize bisexuality as the ability to be attracted to people regardless of gender or to be attracted to people on the basis of a number of criteria, only one of which might be gender. Bisexuals, in this view, are not attracted to women and men but to people, whose gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction." The source is clearly noting how many bisexuals define bisexuality, and those many define it to mean "regardless of gender."

When it comes to the "Assessing Race, Ethnicity and Gender in Health" source, yes, I am aware of what the source states. That is why I noted that one definition the source lists is "individuals who are attracted to individuals of both sexes or who are attracted to people regardless of their sex."

And then there are the other sources that define bisexuality as "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," "gender is irrelevant," or note that this is how many bisexuals define bisexuality. For example, this 2013 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source, from SAGE Publications, page 116, states, "In other words, bisexual people themselves often don't see bisexuality as being attracted to both men and women, but rather that the gender of a person is not particularly relevant to whether or not they are attracted to them." And, yes, the source goes on to subsume the pansexuality identity under the bisexuality identity. Now compare that to what this 2016 "Beyond the Binary: Thinking about Sex and Gender" source, from Broadview Press, page 82, states; it states, "pansexuality (attraction to people, irrespective of their gender)." This 2009 "Sex, Sexuality and Therapeutic Practice: A Manual for Therapists and Trainers" source, from Routledge, page 9, states similarly, reporting, "pansexual (attraction to others irrespective of gender, including attraction to those identifying as transgender, bigender or intersex)." This 2013 "Bisexuality: A Critical Reader" source, from Routledge, page 206, states, "Among bisexuals there are broadly three positions on gender. First: 'gender is irrelevant', or such an insignificant difference between people as to be discountable. Bisexuals who hold this position 'love people'. Second, bisexuals are precisely that -- bisexual -- not gendered, and are erotically attracted to both sexes, but to people of similar gender attributes [...] And third, gender is a mutable, but nevertheless important way of recognizing and expressing particular differences." Now out of those three definitions, only the first one aligns with pansexuality. Pansexual people sometimes describe themselves as "gender-blind" and focus on the love for the person rather than their gender. In fact, this 2015 "Group Counseling with LGBTQI Persons Across the Life Span" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 16, states, "Sometimes these persons also refer to themselves as gender blind, which is meant to represent that gender and assigned sex are not significant in determining their attraction toward others, and sexual attraction is not the sole criterion for pair bonding." Now compare that to the aforementioned "Sex and Society" source stating, "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality, which refers to attraction to individuals of both sexes [...] Those who identify as bisexual feel that gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation should not be a focal point in potential relationships."

Here's my issue with your arguments, other than the fact that you are seemingly disregarding the sources and interpret them to mean things they don't state, which, if you were adding such material to the article, would be a WP:Synthesis violation: You are arguing that bisexuality and pansexuality do not mean the same thing, and that rather pansexuality is simply a type of bisexuality. I am arguing that although some sources note that pansexuality is a subset of bisexuality, other sources define bisexuality and pansexuality the same exact way (using "regardless of" or similar), and/or also note that pansexuality is considered an alternative label for bisexuality. The aforementioned "Sex and Society" source literally states that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably; this (in addition to other sources) is why we state "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." The second definition that we are listing in the lead for bisexuality is supposed to line up with how pansexuality is defined. If it's your argument that all pansexuality definitions include "regardless of" as a requirement for the definition of pansexuality, then how is it that the alternative definition of bisexuality can be equated to pansexuality without use of "regardless of," "all sexes and genders" or "any sex or gender"? My issue with using "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is due to the fact that bisexuality already clearly means sexual attraction two sexes/two genders, and not only is stating "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" another way of stating this, and is something that is partly redundant to stating "toward both males and females," it is not a definition of pansexuality; this proposed wording is not supported by the sources.

I also proposed stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." What issue do you have with that wording? For better flow, we could also add in "that is," so that it read as "or romantic or sexual attraction to people that is not limited by biological sex or gender identity." To me, this wording covers both of our issues.

It is also worth noting that, as mentioned in my "00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)" post above, the lead once stated, "and may also encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of any gender identity or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality." But I cut it down sometime later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

→"the sources are clear that bisexuality may be defined in the binary way or to mean sexual attraction to people regardless of gender or to all sexes and genders," The sources don't state that. I went through each one. The sources state bisexuality may be defined in the binary way or to mean sexual attraction not limited to a single gender or sex. None of the sources appear to state that the second definition is restricted to those attracted "regardless of" gender or sex like pansexuality is. I think the way the pansexuality begins is fine. But the sources do not define the second definition of bisexuality the same way. They define it such that it includes pansexuality, not so that it is the same as pansexuality.

→The "Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution" book by Shiri Esner is very clear on it. The "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges" source states exactly, "There has been a move away from speaking of attraction to both genders, and toward attraction regardless of gender."

Again, this is referring to a shift in the language of discourse, and that is incredibly clear if you read the rest of the page. You've interpreted this to mean "The definition of bisexuality has shifted from being attraction to both genders to attraction regardless of gender", which the source does not state. If fact, the source based this statement, in part, on a statement which clearly defined bisexuality as "mutable sexual and emotional attraction to people of any sex, where gender may not be a defining factor". Note that is doesn't say "isn't" a defining factor.

→For example, you argued that the source is "in no way implying that the bisexual community is beginning to exclude people only attracted to men and women." Well, I never argued that either. I argued that that there has been a shift in the bisexual community and literature to make it clear that bisexuality can mean "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" or "sexual attraction to all sexes and genders." And this source supports me on that.

First of all, it doesn't. Change the word "mean" to "include" and I agree with you. Don't you see how stating that bisexuality (by some definition) means "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" is equally stating that (by that definition) people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual?

→"Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences"...The source is clearly noting how many bisexuals define bisexuality, and those many define it to mean "regardless of gender."

I don't understand how you can read that passage you just quoted and tell me it is explicitly defining bisexuality is "regardless of gender". Read it again. It says "the ability to be attracted to people regardless of gender or to be attracted to people on the basis of a number of criteria, only one of which might be gender ". "Bisexuals, in this view, are not attracted to women and men but to people, whose gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction." It is clearly not stating that bisexuals must experience attraction regardless of gender, but rather that their attraction may or may not be influenced by gender. How can you read "gender might be a criteria", and interpret "gender is not a criteria"? How can you read "Gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction" and interpret "gender is not relevant to the attraction"?

You're accusing me of interpreting the sources to mean something they don't say, but I kind of think that's what you're doing here.

→For example, this 2013 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source, from SAGE Publications, page 116, states, "In other words, bisexual people themselves often don't see bisexuality as being attracted to both men and women, but rather that the gender of a person is not particularly relevant to whether or not they are attracted to them."

You're leaving out the sentence directly before that one, which states: "If we look at people who apply the label bisexual to themselves and see themselves as members of wider bisexual communities, we find that the preferred definition of bisexuality is something like a changeable "emotional and/or sexual attraction to people whose gender may not be a defining factor".

→This 2013 "Bisexuality: A Critical Reader" source, from Routledge, page 206, states, "Among bisexuals there are broadly three positions on gender...

This, again, supports the idea that attraction regardless of gender(pansexuality) is included in the the broader definition of bisexuality, not synonymous with it.

I am in no way disputing that many bisexual people say they are attracted to people regardless of gender, but in order to say the this broader definition of bisexuality is synonymous with pansexuality, there would also have to be bisexual people claiming that bisexual people who are only attracted to men and women, or who are attracted to some non-binary people, but in a way that is highly dependent on gender do not meet their definition of bisexuality. So far no source supports this idea, unlike the sources on pansexuality. Even the Sex and Society source says the two words are only interchangeable "in some contexts", which is a fairly vague statement. You could also say that the words sex and gender are interchangeable 'in some contexts', but that wouldn't justify changing the article on gender to state "gender is sometimes alternatively called sex" without any further explanation about the specific cases in which this is the case. The fact that it goes on the describe specific differences between the two identities makes it a bit difficult for me to read one part of one sentence with the word "interchangeable" in it and draw the conclusion that you are.

"or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." Is still not correct. "not limited by biological sex or gender identity" is the same as "regardless of sex or gender" to me. If we're to be true to the sources, we should not claim that the broader definition of bisexuality is never limited or influenced by sex or gender, nor that it is synonymous with pansexuality. I think the sources clearly support using something along the lines of "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited single sex or gender" or ""or romantic or sexual attraction to more than one sex or gender, which may or may not be influenced by gender". I personally prefer the first. Whether or not this line is followed by a mention of pansexuality is not particularly important to me (although I do think it provides good information). But it simply does not make sense to follow it with "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." unless you somehow include the relevant information that "sometimes" means "when the attraction is not influences or limited by gender at all". --Thefoxyfox (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You argue that the sources don't state that "bisexuality may be defined in the binary way or to mean sexual attraction to people regardless of gender or to all sexes and genders." They don't use that exact wording, but they do make it clear that bisexuality may be defined in a binary way, which many bisexuals have moved away from, or as "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," "gender is irrelevant," or in some other non-binary way. In terms of the sources I've showcased thus far, they do not all or even mostly state "not limited to a single gender or sex." But even among the sources that do, it's common that they don't state this as a broader definition of bisexuality; they usually give it as the initial or sole definition.

I argued that using "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is not a definition of pansexuality. But, at times, it actually is a definition of pansexuality...without the "single" aspect that you keep arguing for, which (as previously noted) is also an aspect that I find redundant because bisexuality obviously is not limited to a single sex or gender. This 2015 "Systemic Sex Therapy" source, from Routledge, page 214, states, "pansexual (someone who is not limited in sexual attraction with regard to biological sex, gender identity, or gender expression)." This 2017 "Counseling Women Across the Life Span: Empowerment, Advocacy, and Intervention" source, from Springer, page 80, states that pansexual means "those not limited in sexual attraction based on gender, gender assigned at birth, or gender identity (APA, 2013)." Notice that it's citing either the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. Both of those associations define bisexuality in a binary way; so me noting that is me sparing you having to feel the need to note it to me. Regardless, this is yet another way that bisexuality and pansexuality are defined in the same way (meaning that some sources also defined bisexuality as "not limited to [or in, or by]"). And this further validates my suggestion that we use "or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." By contrast, stating "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is a "no duh" matter to me for the "redundant" reasoning I gave. To avoid WP:Synthesis, we could state "or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity," and then source that. And then state, "This latter aspect is also called pansexuality," and then source that. Note that you used the following wording: "This latter aspect is also called 'pansexuality' in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all." If we go with my latest proposal, there is no need to state "in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all." Going with "also called" instead of "sometimes alternatively termed" avoids the issue you have with equating the two. But I might still want to note that the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Even if I don't, readers will still see that the two terms may at times mean the same thing (including in the Definitions section).

When it comes to supporting an alternate definition of bisexuality that also means pansexuality, the sources support "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," "gender is irrelevant," "not limited to [or in, or by]" and similar. You argued that "none of the sources appear to state that the second definition is restricted to those attracted 'regardless of' gender or sex like pansexuality is." Well, none of the sources state that pansexuality is restricted to that definition either. For pansexuality, some sources state "regardless of," some state "irrespective of gender," some state that "gender is insignificant," some state "all genders," some state "not limited to [or in, or by]," and so on. My argument has not been that the sources limit bisexuality to such a definition. My argument has been that bisexuality is defined in both the binary way and in a way that is the same thing as pansexuality or specifically equated with pansexuality. And I've provided reliable sources showcasing this. I'm not sure that I intend to provide any more unless I am presenting them in a WP:RfC. And a WP:RfC seems to be the next course of action, considering that we can't seem to come to an agreement on different wording for the second part of the lead sentence and its followup sentence, and since I'd rather not keep debating this, especially considering that I am often busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia (which is why it sometimes takes me two or more days to reply to you; well, other than me needing the days off).

You stated that "[the sources] define [bisexuality] such that it includes pansexuality, not so that it is the same as pansexuality" but "includes" (as in specifically including) is only the case for some of the sources I've presented on this talk page (mainly ones in the #Definition of Bisexuality section below). This 2013 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source is one example I noted above. Yes, it lists pansexuality under bisexuality. I mentioned that. But it also states the following of bisexuality: "In other words, bisexual people themselves often don't see bisexuality as being attracted to both men and women, but rather that the gender of a person is not particularly relevant to whether or not they are attracted to them." Many sources state the same exact thing about pansexuality. And I repeat that the "Sex and Society" source specifically states "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality." I'm not sure how you define "interchangeably," but "interchangeably" means "capable of being put or used in the place of each other: interchangeable symbols. 2. (of one thing) capable of replacing or changing places with something else: an interchangeable part."

The pages of the "Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution" book that I am talking about are about the idea that bisexuality is binary...and about challenging that idea. Those pages are about moving away from the idea that bisexuality is binary and using terms like pansexuality in the place of bisexuality because bisexuality is considered binary by many. In fact, the book is making the case that bisexuality was never binary.

Your interpretation of the "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges" source makes not a bit of sense to me. You stated, "this is referring to a shift in the language of discourse, and that is incredibly clear if you read the rest of the page." What else do you think we've been arguing about here? We've been arguing about definitional shifts. A definitional shift is "a shift in the language of discourse," as you call it. See what discourse means. We've been arguing a shift in language. The shift in language/definition of bisexuality among many bisexuals has moved away from defining bisexuality as binary. I've interpreted the source to mean that "the definition of bisexuality has shifted from being attraction to both genders to attraction regardless of gender" because some sources, including some I've included on this talk page, make it explicitly clear that bisexuality is defined that way among many bisexuals, and because the source specifically states, "There has been a move away from speaking of attraction to both genders, and toward attraction regardless of gender." It is talking about the way that bisexuality is conceptualized. You act like I am stating that the sources are solely defining bisexuality as "regardless of sex or gender"; I'm not arguing that.

You asked: "Don't you see how stating that bisexuality (by some definition) means 'sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity' is equally stating that (by that definition) people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual?" No, I don't...since we are simply noting another definition of bisexuality, and are not at all stating or implying that "people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual." In fact, as seen on this talk page, because of the binary part of the lead sentence, we get complaints that the lead makes people think that bisexuality is only about sexual attraction to men and women. The way that the lead is currently crafted by using "or" has, however, combated those complaints. I have a few questions too: Don't you see that stating that one definition of bisexuality means "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" and that it's this definition that is equated with pansexuality is simply stating that the second definition of bisexuality is considered pansexuality? Don't you see that "sometimes" does not mean "always"? Don't you see that it's not stating bisexuality and pansexuality are automatically the same thing? Earlier, you compared vegetarianism with veganism. Well, since veganism is an aspect of vegetarianism, that aspect is commonly referred to as vegetarianism. There are a number of sources that call veganism "vegetarianism."

Regarding the "Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences" source, I can read that passage and tell you that it is explicitly defining bisexuality as "regardless of gender" because it explicitly states, "Many bisexual-identified people prefer to conceptualize bisexuality as the ability to be attracted to people regardless of gender or to be attracted to people on the basis of a number of criteria, only one of which might be gender. Bisexuals, in this view, are not attracted to women and men but to people, whose gender may or may not be relevant to the attraction." You are focused on "might be gender" and "may or may not be relevant" as if that negates the "regardless of gender" aspect of the statement. It doesn't. The fact that some bisexuals may factor gender in does not negate the many bisexuals who do not factor gender in. The source clearly states "or." And yet you are focused on the more limiting aspect of bisexuality as if that negates the non-limiting aspect of it. The 2015 "Group Counseling with LGBTQI Persons Across the Life Span" source states that pansexual people sometimes "refer to themselves as gender blind, which is meant to represent that gender and assigned sex are not significant in determining their attraction toward others, and sexual attraction is not the sole criterion for pair bonding." Notice that it states "not the sole criterion," not that sexual attraction is not a part of it. This doesn't mean that pansexual people who do factor in sexual attraction are negated by those who do not, just like the fact that some bisexuals may factor gender in does not negate the bisexuals who do not factor gender in.

Yes, I'm accusing you of interpreting the sources to mean something they don't state. That's because you are. I am repeating exactly what they state, and you are elaborating on them with your personal viewpoint (which now includes you accusing me of interpreting the sources to mean something they don't state), and then I am challenging you on that. Regarding the 2013 "Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide" source, I'm not leaving out the sentence directly before that one; I'm focused on the broader definition because that is what this discussion is mainly about. And although that source states, "If we look at people who apply the label bisexual to themselves and see themselves as members of wider bisexual communities, we find that the preferred definition of bisexuality is something like a changeable 'emotional and/or sexual attraction to people whose gender 'may' not be a defining factor.", it also states, "In other words, bisexual people themselves often don't see bisexuality as being attracted to both men and women, but rather that the gender of a person is not particularly relevant to whether or not they are attracted to them." The "may" in the previous sentence is used to indicate the many bisexuals who do not factor gender in.

Regarding the 2013 "Bisexuality: A Critical Reader" source, you argued that the "Among bisexuals there are broadly three positions on gender" part "supports the idea that attraction regardless of gender (pansexuality) is included in the the broader definition of bisexuality, not synonymous with it." No, go by what that source states. It states that bisexuals have three positions on gender when it comes to bisexuality. And for the very first position, it states, "First: 'gender is irrelevant', or such an insignificant difference between people as to be discountable. Bisexuals who hold this position 'love people'." And that is pretty much the definition of pansexuality. The source is not stating that pansexuality is merely included. It doesn't state "pansexuality" at all. It's making it clear that this is one view of what bisexuality is. It is a definition of bisexuality, which also happens to be how pansexuality is defined (as shown by other sources).

You argued that you are "in no way disputing that many bisexual people say they are attracted to people regardless of gender, but in order to say the this broader definition of bisexuality is synonymous with pansexuality, there would also have to be bisexual people claiming that bisexual people who are only attracted to men and women, or who are attracted to some non-binary people, but in a way that is highly dependent on gender do not meet their definition of bisexuality." No, that's not the way Wikipedia works. At all.

Your argument that "or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality" still is not correct is not something I agree with. My first latest paragraph above goes over why. You stated, "If we're to be true to the sources, we should not claim that the broader definition of bisexuality is never limited or influenced by sex or gender." But we don't do that. And, yes, the pansexuality aspect should be noted in the lead. The lead need not include all definitions; elaboration on definition is what the "Definitions" section is for.

Since we are at an impasse, I suggest that we proceed to an RfC. That is, if you object to my latest wording proposal as well. The RfC will be set up so that it includes different options for participants to choose from. Not too many, though, as this can overwhelm the participants. The RfC will lead to a WP:Consensus and resolve this issue, regardless of whether you or I agree with the outcome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, you seem to think that I want to remove the binary definition from the article? I can't tell. That's not what I want to do. I'm fine with the first (binary) definition being included, but I think it's necessary to change the second, broader, non-binary definition. As we've established, most of the sources are not defining bisexuality to mean specifically "attraction regardless of gender". Roughly all of them defined the broader definition such that gender "may or may not" affect attraction. Not all of the sources specifically call bisexuality "not limited to a single gender or sex" with that exact wording, but all of them define it in line with that definition. Multiple sources, on the other hand, do directly contradict a definition that specifies attraction is "regardless of gender" or defines the broader definition of bisexuality as being synonymous with pansexuality.

→"I argued that using "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is not a definition of pansexuality. But, at times, it actually is a definition of pansexuality...without the "single" aspect that you keep arguing for, which (as previously noted) is also an aspect that I find redundant because bisexuality obviously is not limited to a single sex or gender."

Yes, the "single" is important. Pansexuality is not limited by gender or sex at all. Bisexuality is may or may not be limited by sex or gender, and thus, the remaining, defining characteristic of this broader definition is that it isn't limited to only one. A bisexual person, unlike a pansexual person, may be limited to two genders, but they cannot be limited to one. Could you please elaborate on why you find this redundant?

I specifically addressed problems with your interpretation of every single source that you mention again in your 4th paragraph, and you didn't seem to address any thing I said about them.

→"You asked: "Don't you see how stating that bisexuality (by some definition) means 'sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity' is equally stating that (by that definition) people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual?" No, I don't...since we are simply noting another definition of bisexuality, and are not at all stating or implying that "people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual.""

But you are saying "people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual in terms of this second definition." Correct? That's the issue I have. The bisexual community, including those who use broader, non-binary definitions of bisexuality, and all the sources which list such definitions as well, do not exclude people only attracted to men and women from their broader, non-binary definitions. The sourced definitions of pansexuality do exclude people only attracted to men and women.

→"Don't you see that stating that one definition of bisexuality means "sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity" and that it's this definition that is equated with pansexuality is simply stating that the second definition of bisexuality is considered pansexuality?"

Yes, I see that, and I don't believe that that is supported by the sources, for reasons I have already pointed out, including significant use of words like "might" and "may or may not" in relation to whether bisexual attraction is affected by gender, in addition to the absence of such words in the definitions of pansexuality.

→Don't you see that "sometimes" does not mean "always"? Don't you see that it's not stating bisexuality and pansexuality are automatically the same thing?

Perhaps I should clarify. You are saying that the second definition is always the synonymous with pansexuality, right? Always=always. If you're saying that the second definition is only sometimes synonymous with pansexuality, then we need to change the wording of the second definition, and we need to clarify the circumstances in which the two definitions are interchangeable.

→"Well, since veganism is an aspect of vegetarianism, that aspect is commonly referred to as vegetarianism. There are a number of sources that call veganism "vegetarianism.""

Yes, but vegetarianism is only referred to as veganism when that particular instance of vegetarianism meets certain additional criteria. You cannot say that the two are interchangeable.

Regarding your 8th paragraph, you clearly admit that the "Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences" source includes two broader definitions of bisexuality that are *both* non binary, correct? One that is "regardless of gender" and one that "may or may not be affected by gender" but is still a non-binary definition. Well this article currently lists two definitions, the binary definition, and the first non-binary definition from this source. The second non-binary definition is missing. We could add a third definition to the intro, but to me that seems excessive. Another option is to replace use the second non-binary definition instead. This works because the second non-binary definition includes the first non-binary definition, whereas the first non-binary definition excludes some members of the second non-binary definition.

In your ninth paragraph you said "The "may" in the previous sentence is used to indicate the many bisexuals who do not factor gender in." But I think you have it backwards. To me the "may" clearly is there to indicate that there are many bisexuals who do factor gender in. If it were to indicate that there are bisexuals who do not factor gender in, they would have just said "is" instead of "may" and been much clearer.

Regarding the 2013 "Bisexuality: A Critical Reader" source, you again point out that the second definition of bisexuality that is currently used in this article is just one aspect of the non-binary definition of bisexuality. That is, bisexuality is only synonymous with pansexuality if you use this one single narrow definition of it, as opposed to using the broader non-binary definition which includes it. If we are to list two definitions in the beginning of this article, one binary and one non-binary, shouldn't we use the broader non-binary definition rather than this one particular subset of that definition?

→"The lead need not include all definitions; elaboration on definition is what the "Definitions" section is for."

In that case, shouldn't it at least include the most broad, common non-binary definition of bisexuality which just so happens to include all the other ones, rather that a more narrow one that happens to be synonymous with another sexual orientation?

It seems like you really still don't even understand what my issue is with the current wording, and you've hardly addressed any of my criticisms of your interpretation of the source material. Meanwhile, I don't understand why you are so determined to make the articles lead state that the broader definition of bisexuality is synonymous with pansexuality when you have to cherry pick lines from the source material to begin support that viewpoint.

I'm fine with moving this on to whatever dispute resolution process is appropriate but I think it is important that both of our points of view are heard in that process, rather than just a choice of a few wordings without context.--Thefoxyfox (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think you want to remove the binary definition from the article. I am clear on seeing what you want to do, and I disagree with it (well, your wording proposals thus far), for reasons I've already been over. You stated, "As we've established, most of the sources are not defining bisexuality to mean specifically 'attraction regardless of gender'." And, again, I never stated that. I have repeatedly stated that this is one of the definitions of bisexuality and that it means the same thing as pansexuality. And I provided source after source showing this. We mention pansexuality in the lead for the very fact that bisexuality is sometimes defined as broadly as pansexuality is and because pansexuality is commonly either defined to be an alternative term for bisexuality or is directly subsumed under bisexuality, in which case it is still commonly stated to be an alternative definition of bisexuality. The fact that not all sources solely define bisexuality as "regardless of gender" does not support the argument that "[m]ultiple sources, on the other hand, do directly contradict a definition that specifies attraction is 'regardless of gender' or defines the broader definition of bisexuality as being synonymous with pansexuality. "

You argued, "Yes, the 'single' is important. Pansexuality is not limited by gender or sex at all. Bisexuality is may or may not be limited by sex or gender, and thus, the remaining, defining characteristic of this broader definition is that it isn't limited to only one." The problem with this (what you are stating here) is that what must be kept in mind is that "may or may not be" is not always in the definition of bisexuality; I've showcased this with sources. You stated, "Pansexuality is not limited by gender or sex at all." The use of "at all" is your wording. By contrast, some sources define bisexuality as "not limited by gender or [biological] sex" as well, with or without "one" or "single." This definition, without "one" or "single," is pansexuality. The fact that it is used to define bisexuality as well is what I am stating. You asked why do I find using "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" redundant. I've already explained this (more than once). The lead already states, "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females." It goes without saying then that bisexuality is "sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender." Most people do not follow the sex and gender distinction. Regarding biological sex, most people only think in terms of two. Even many intersex people do not see themselves as two sexes, and the DNA analyses wouldn't report two sexes either; it would report one or the other even while identifying the person as intersex. In terms of gender, most people only think in terms of two. So stating "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender." will be redundant to many readers. Furthermore, that second definition is not broad enough regarding the many bisexuals who state "regardless of gender." And with use of "single," that second definition does not equate to pansexuality while the lead is trying to address pansexuality as well.

You stated that you "specifically addressed problems with [my] interpretation of every single source that [I] mention again in [my] 4th paragraph, and [I] didn't seem to address any thing [you] said about them." I addressed you point by point. So I don't see what you mean.

You argued "[b]ut [I am] saying people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual in terms of this second definition." No. I'm not saying that. And I'm not seeing where you are getting that from. Like I just told you above, "The lead need not include all definitions; elaboration on definition is what the 'Definitions' section is for." Stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" is not stating that people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual. We are clearly stating that this is another definition of bisexuality. The aforementioned American Institute of Bisexuality source specifically states that these people are also bisexual. Sources that list pansexuality under bisexuality are stating that pansexuality is a form of bisexuality; some are simply stating that pansexual is an alternative term for being bisexual. From what I see, the American Institute of Bisexuality certainly is stating that. The "people who are only attracted to men and women" aspect is covered by the very aspect of the first sentence in the lead of the Bisexuality article. Notice, however, that we don't state "only" anywhere. From what I remember, neither do any of the sources I've listed. None of the sources I've listed state 'only'." If any do, point to them. You arguing this is another example of what I mean about you interpreting the sources to mean something they don't state. You are clearly also interpreting the lead to mean something it doesn't state simply because it doesn't include your preferred "not limited to a single sex or gender" definition. There are a number of definitions of bisexuality. I repeat: We do not need to, and shouldn't, include all of those definitions. We do not need to include "not limited to a single sex or gender." And I repeat that even among the sources that do state "not limited to" "not limited in," "not limited by" for bisexuality, it's common that they don't state this as a broader definition of bisexuality; they usually give it as the initial or sole definition. You keep arguing that "not limited to" is a broader definition of bisexuality. What sources do you have stating that this is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality? The point of the second definition is to give the non-binary viewpoint of bisexuality, and to note that the non-binary viewpoint often aligns with pansexuality.

You stated that you "don't believe that the sources support that 'one definition of bisexuality means 'sexual attraction to people regardless of their biological sex or gender identity' and that it's this definition that is equated with pansexuality." We disagree there. Because some of the sources do support that, and the "Sex and Society" source specifically states that the terms are used interchangeably. Furthermore, you even suggested that we add "this latter definition encompasses the more specific term Pansexuality, which explicitly includes attraction to all genders regardless of sex and gender identity." And you later added, "This latter aspect is also called 'pansexuality' in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all."

You asked, "You are saying that the second definition is always the synonymous with pansexuality, right?" No. And since the lead states "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality," I continue to fail to see how you've come to that conclusion.

You argued, "Yes, but vegetarianism is only referred to as veganism when that particular instance of vegetarianism meets certain additional criteria. You cannot say that the two are interchangeable." The lead is referring to bisexuality as pansexuality in the case of "sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity." This is clear without your proposed changes. And when we are following one or more WP:Reliable sources that state "sometimes interchangeable," we can state "sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." We can do that because that's how Wikipedia works. And there are sources that use "vegetarianism and veganism" to mean the same thing.

Regarding the eighth paragraph of my previous comment, I am simply stating that "regardless of" is one of the definitions and that "may or may not be" is covering the binary and-non-binary bisexuals. You stated, "Well this article currently lists two definitions, the binary definition, and the first non-binary definition from this source. The second non-binary definition is missing. We could add a third definition to the intro, but to me that seems excessive." This goes back to what I argued about not needing all definitions in the lead. I've already had three in the lead before. The important thing is to give the binary viewpoint (which is male/man and female/woman), and then the inclusive viewpoint. The inclusive viewpoint is "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," or "gender is irrelevant." You keep arguing that "not limited to a single sex or gender" is the inclusive viewpoint. But, really, that definition is a second common definition of bisexuality, and you are using it to be somewhat exclusive since it doesn't mean the same thing as "regardless of"; rarely is it noted as being more inclusive. Like I noted before, it is rather simply given as the definition of bisexuality. The "male/man and female/woman" definition is still the most prevalent definition of bisexuality. But, just like you were thinking, I'm now thinking that three definitions seems to be the route to go if we want to go ahead and resolve this and not head to an RfC. I don't agree with your "includes" and "excludes" arguments.

You stated, "In [my] ninth paragraph [I] said 'The "may' in the previous sentence is used to indicate the many bisexuals who do not factor gender in.' But [you] think [I] have it backwards." I don't, and I did think about changing that after I wrote it. What I mean is that the "may" aspect indicates both sides. The rest of what you state on the matter is semantics.

You stated, "Regarding the 2013 'Bisexuality: A Critical Reader' source, you again point out that the second definition of bisexuality that is currently used in this article is just one aspect of the non-binary definition of bisexuality. That is, bisexuality is only synonymous with pansexuality if you use this one single narrow definition of it, as opposed to using the broader non-binary definition which includes it. If we are to list two definitions in the beginning of this article, one binary and one non-binary, shouldn't we use the broader non-binary definition rather than this one particular subset of that definition?" I've already covered this above in this post. Using "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," or "gender is irrelevant" is the broader non-binary definition, not your suggestion of "not limited to a single sex or gender." The binary bisexuals are not at all excluded by the current lead or if we were to state "or regardless of gender" or similar since we already list the binary viewpoint and are talking about the equation with pansexuality for the second definition.

You stated, "In that case, shouldn't it at least include the most broad, common non-binary definition of bisexuality which just so happens to include all the other ones, rather that a more narrow one that happens to be synonymous with another sexual orientation?" Again, I've already been over this. And your statements on this contrast your contention that bisexuality is not the same thing as pansexuality. In some contexts, they are same thing. And that is what I've been arguing.

As for understanding your issue with the current lead, I understand...but I do not agree with your viewpoint and have been confused as to how you've interpreted the lead the way you have. Your interpretation does make me think that we should alter the lead a little, since you might not be the only one who views it this way. But we always get different interpretations of the lead, and other article leads; this does not mean we should change the lead each and every time. There is always going to be someone who views something differently than others.

You speak of me being "so determined to make the articles lead state that the broader definition of bisexuality is synonymous with pansexuality when [I] have to cherry pick lines from the source material to begin support that viewpoint." It is not about me being so determined to to do anything. Nor is it about cherry-picking lines or sources. You have argued that bisexuality and pansexuality are not the same thing. I have argued that they are sometimes defined the same way, and are sometimes considered to be the same thing/interchangeable, and I have provided sources on this. I have provided sources showing that a broad definition of bisexuality is "regardless of" gender and similar. I have argued that the point of the sentence in question is to relay the binary definition first and then the non-binary definition second. I have argued that when it comes to the non-binary definition of bisexuality, the one usually given is the argument that gender is irrelevant; that is why I have argued for having something like that in the lead. I asked you above: What sources do you have stating that "not limited to" is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality?"

When it comes to pansexuality, there is hardly any research on it..as a distinct entity. It is almost always considered bisexuality or a subset of bisexuality. When someone tells a researcher that they are pansexual, that researcher usually categorizes that person as bisexual and/or notes pansexual as an alternative term for being bisexual. Let's look at a few more sources: This 2014 "The Erasure of Bisexual Students in Australian Education Policy and Practice" source states that there are "political concerns—ranging from those of heterosexual male or female students who may occasionally feel or act on same-sex attraction whether publicly or otherwise, to gender-diverse students who use bisexuality interchangeably with the term 'pansexual.' " This 2014 "The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender" source, from OUP Oxford, page 641, states, "Some people who meet the definition of bisexual may describe ourselves as pansexual (attracted to people of all sexes or genders), polysexual (attracted to many sexes or genders), fluid (having attractions that shift or change over time), or as queer (a slur, reclaimed as an identity). Bisexual people often use more than one label, identifying, for example, as bisexual and queer." The source is clear that people with these alternative labels are categorized as bisexual by researchers. It goes on to make this even clearer. And, indeed, when researching the topic of sexual fluidity, one should see that it is either explicitly or non-explicitly considered bisexuality, with some sources wanting sexual fluidity to be its own separate identity. Yes, some sources state "includes" when it comes to pansexuality with regard to bisexuality, but some of those same sources state more than that too. 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. Both bisexuals and pansexuals may be attracted to intersex and transgender people who may identify as male, female, or neither." Notice that this source uses "may" for pansexuality as well? It also states that pansexuality is "sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes (may also be referred to as bisexuality)." It also notes that "bisexuality itself is so hard to define."

This 2016 "Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices" source states, "Bisexuality is defined in a plethora of ways, including definitions based on behavior, attraction, or desire and may employ binary or nonbinary definitions. Research has not adequately addressed how young bisexual people themselves define bisexuality, whether those definitions change with social context, or whether bisexual people define bisexuality differently from pansexual people. Results indicate that in general, bisexual and pansexual people define bisexuality similarly. Participants modified their definitions of bisexuality depending upon the social context." This source states "similarly" for its summary, but reading the source shows more than "similarly" in some cases. And there is also David M. Halperin, who has given thirteen different definitions of bisexuality. He argues, "There is considerable disagreement among bisexuals and bisexual theorists themselves. I present 13 definitions of bisexuality and inquire into their overlaps, differences, implications and consequences. This unresolved definitional uncertainty points to a larger uncertainty about what sexuality is and how it should be understood. Bisexual theory therefore has the potential to remind us of aporias in the contemporary conception of sexuality." The author of this 2016 "Women in Relationships with Bisexual Men: Bi Men By Women" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 56, also argues that there are multiple ways of defining and positioning bisexuality, and apparently agrees with Halperin.

When it comes to proposals for the lead, I recently suggested: "To avoid WP:Synthesis, we could state 'or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity,' and then source that. And then state, 'This latter aspect is also called pansexuality,' and then source that. Note that you used the following wording: 'This latter aspect is also called 'pansexuality' in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all.' If we go with my latest proposal, there is no need to state 'in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all.' Going with 'also called' instead of 'sometimes alternatively termed' avoids the issue you have with equating the two. But I might still want to note that the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Even if I don't, readers will still see that the two terms may at times mean the same thing (including in the Definitions section)." You didn't respond to this. So now I suggest we change the lead to: "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality." We can also trade out "people of any sex or gender identity" for "regardless of sex or gender identity." I would have stuck with "alternatively termed," but you keep seeming to have an issue with retaining that.

As for an RfC, I would of course make both viewpoints clear, then list some of our wording suggestions, and point to the more in-depth discussion for further detail (since the initial wording of RfCs are not supposed to be too long). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You said "I have repeatedly stated that this is one of the definitions of bisexuality and that it means the same thing as pansexuality. And I provided source after source showing this." And I would take issue with that to an extent. The majority of the sources cited that include wording similar to "regardless of gender" either elsewhere clarify that this is not a requirement, or, when they do mention pansexuality directly, do not state that they are the same. The minority that do offer it as an additional definition all offer another non-binary definition that is inclusive of it.

You said "pansexuality is commonly either defined to be an alternative term for bisexuality or is directly subsumed under bisexuality, in which case it is still commonly stated to be an alternative definition of bisexuality". I disagree on both counts. As I just pointed out, the majority of the sources do not define pansexuality to be an alternative term for bisexuality. At best they define it as an alternative term of one particular narrow definition of bisexuality which exists among other, broader definitions which encompass it. Even in that situation, I do not feel it's being true to the sources to say that the broader definition in gender is synonymous with pansexuality.

→"The fact that not all sources solely define bisexuality as "regardless of gender" does not support the argument that "[m]ultiple sources, on the other hand, do directly contradict a definition that specifies attraction is 'regardless of gender' or defines the broader definition of bisexuality as being synonymous with pansexuality.""

No, but the fact that those sources include language such as "may or may not" and "might" which makes clear the "regardless of gender" part is not a requirement of the definition does support that argument.

You said "By contrast, some sources define bisexuality as "not limited by gender or [biological] sex" as well, with or without "one" or "single."", Do you mean sources that also define it more broadly than this additionally? Or if they present that as the sole non-binary definition, please remind me of the source. As I said before, if a source lists multiple non-binary definitions, one being broader and inclusive of the other, I don't think it makes sense to only use the more narrow of the two in the beginning of the article. Also, the fact that some sources don't include such a narrow definition in the first place in their non-binary definitions makes me think that information should be left of the "definitions" section.

→"The lead already states, "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females." It goes without saying then that bisexuality is "sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender." Most people do not follow the sex and gender distinction. Regarding biological sex, most people only think in terms of two.[...]In terms of gender, most people only think in terms of two."

That's the binary definition. The non-binary definition is separate. I don't understand this argument, as any non-binary definition will automatically confuse anyone who thinks of gender or sex in terms of two. That's (partly) the point of including both.

→"Furthermore, that second definition is not broad enough regarding the many bisexuals who state "regardless of gender." And with use of "single," that second definition does not equate to pansexuality while the lead is trying to address pansexuality as well."

I don't understand this statement. "Not limited to a single sex or gender" is automatically inclusive of anyone who is attracted "regardless of gender". It's not "not broad enough", It's more broad. The fact that it does not equate to pansexuality is deliberate, as all the sources that equate any definition of bisexuality to pansexuality also include a separate definition of bisexuality which is broader and encompass that definition. And on top of that, many do not include any such definition equating it to pansexuality in the first place. I think it's fine to address pansexuality in the lead, but we absolutely should not be equating the broader, non-binary definition of bisexuality to it, as it is not true to the source material.

→"Like I just told you above, "The lead need not include all definitions; elaboration on definition is what the 'Definitions' section is for." Stating "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" is not stating that people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual."

Again, it is stating that people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual in terms of the second definition. If we are to list two definitions in the lead, one binary and one non-binary, I don't see why the non-binary definition listed should be a narrow definition only given by some of the sources, rather than the broader definition which is better supported among all the source material, and entirely encompass said narrow definition.

You said,"And I repeat that even among the sources that do state "not limited to" "not limited in," "not limited by" for bisexuality, it's common that they don't state this as a broader definition of bisexuality; they usually give it as the initial or sole definition. You keep arguing that "not limited to" is a broader definition of bisexuality. What sources do you have stating that this is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality?" This is confusing to me. They are presenting it as the 'initial' or 'sole' definition for the specific reason that it is broader and all-encompassing of all the other more narrow definitions. How isn't that presenting it as a broader definition? They don't need to specifically say it is broader if they present multiple definitions and it is the broadest one. They don't need to explicitly call it a "broader definition" if any other definition that has ever existed is more narrow than it. It's broad because it literally is the broadest definition provided by any of the source material.

You said, "The point of the second definition is to give the non-binary viewpoint of bisexuality, and to note that the non-binary viewpoint often aligns with pansexuality." I would disagree and say that the point of the second definition is simply to show that there is a non-binary definition of bisexuality in the first place, after stating the binary one. Noting that the non-binary definition includes pansexuality is a nice bit of information, I don't think it should be considered a reason to include the non-binary definition in the first place. Even if pansexuality didn't exist, we would still be including the second definition.

You keep bringing up "Sex and Society". For the last time. It says they interchangeable in some contexts, and then goes on to explain their differences. That is not defining them synonymously.

I think I've made myself clear that "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality," is not specific enough in terms of the circumstances in which that is the case.

→"This goes back to what I argued about not needing all definitions in the lead. I've already had three in the lead before. The important thing is to give the binary viewpoint (which is male/man and female/woman), and then the inclusive viewpoint. The inclusive viewpoint is "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," or "gender is irrelevant." You keep arguing that "not limited to a single sex or gender" is the inclusive viewpoint. But, really, that definition is a second common definition of bisexuality, and you are using it to be somewhat exclusive since it doesn't mean the same thing as "regardless of"; rarely is it noted as being more inclusive. "

Again it doesn't need to be explicitly stated to be more inclusive. It literally is broader and more inclusive. Think about it. Imagine you have person A who is only attracted to men and women. Person B is attracted to people regardless of gender (aka pansexual). Person C's attraction isn't limited to men and women, but gender still has a significant effect on how he experiences attraction. Now you have 3 definitions for bisexuality. Definition 1 is the binary definition. Definition 2 is your 'inclusive viewpoint'("regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," or "gender is irrelevant."). Definition 3 is my 'inclusive viewpoint'("not limited to a single sex or gender"). Now lets see who fits under each definition. Definition 1:[person A]. Definition 2:[person B]. Definition 3:[Person A, Person B, Person C]. Definition 3 is clearly the most inclusive.

You said, "What I mean is that the "may" aspect indicates both sides.", which means all the sources using such wording are presenting a definition that is inclusive of both sides.

→"You have argued that bisexuality and pansexuality are not the same thing. I have argued that they are sometimes defined the same way, and are sometimes considered to be the same thing/interchangeable, and I have provided sources on this. I have provided sources showing that a broad definition of bisexuality is "regardless of" gender and similar."

They are sometimes defined the same, but most of the sources with such definitions also include a broader definition in which pansexuality is a subset of bisexuality.

→"I have argued that when it comes to the non-binary definition of bisexuality, the one usually given is the argument that gender is irrelevant;"

Not really no. The one given by the sources most frequently is that gender may or may not be relevant.

In your paragraph on research on pansexuality, you cite a source stating "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. Both bisexuals and pansexuals may be attracted to intersex and transgender people who may identify as male, female, or neither." and then you say "Notice that this source uses "may" for pansexuality as well?"

That is a funny interpretation. The word "may" is being used because both bisexuals and pansexuals combined are the subject of the sentence. It's not saying "bisexuals may and pansexuals may" but rather "both bisexuals and pansexuals have the potential to be attracted to..." or "not only pansexuals but also can be to be attracted to..." . This sentence does not imply that some pansexuals aren't capable of being attracted to intersex, trans, or non-binary people, as this would contradict the above mention of "romantic or sexual attractions to all gender identities". Later you staid, "It also states that pansexuality is 'sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes (may also be referred to as bisexuality).'", which isn't anything new. It's simply once again stating that pansexuality is a subset. Pansexuality can always be referred to as bisexuality, but bisexuality can only be referred to as pansexuality for the specific subset of bisexual people who meet the definition of pansexuality.

Regarding "Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices", I believe it says that bisexuals and pansexuals define bisexuality similarly. Not that they define bisexuality and pansexuality as being similar or the same to each other. As for David M. Halperin, I'm not sure what point your trying to make regarding what he said. I'm not arguing there is only one way to define bisexuality.

As for your previous suggestion:

→To avoid WP:Synthesis, we could state 'or romantic or sexual attraction to people not limited by biological sex or gender identity, and then source that. And then state, 'This latter aspect is also called pansexuality,' and then source that. Note that you used the following wording: 'This latter aspect is also called 'pansexuality' in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all.' If we go with my latest proposal, there is no need to state 'in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all.' Going with 'also called' instead of 'sometimes alternatively termed' avoids the issue you have with equating the two.

This doesn't address the issue of using a more narrow narrow non-binary definition("not limited by biological sex or gender identity,") in the lead instead of a broader on that is inclusive of that definition. One way we can avoid the 'in the specific case that an individual's sexual attraction is not limited by sex or gender identity at all.' part while still using the broader definition would be to say something like "this latter aspect includes or encompass pansexuality'.

→"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction regardless of sex or gender identity., which is also known as pansexuality."

This is the first proposal I don't feel is wrong or misleading. It does notably include 3 definitions instead of 2. As you have mentioned, there is a separate "definitions" section in the article, and I personally feel the last sentence may be better suited there. My point of view here is that while there were many sources that did include that third definition in addition to the second, there were also some sources that only used the second, and there were (if I recall correctly) no sources that only used the 3rd. When you factor in the fact that the second definition includes the third by default, this proposal seems to be giving undo weight to the third definition. I am personally in favor of a solution that states that pansexuality falls under the second definition, rather than stating a 3rd definition of bisexuality that is equivalent to pansexuality in the lead. How do you feel about:

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. Some bisexuals experience attraction regardless of sex or gender identity., which is also known as pansexuality."( or this is (sometimes alternatively)/(also) termed pansexuality.)

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. This latter aspect includes (sexual and romantic) attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also (known as)/(called) pansexuality." --Thefoxyfox (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You stated, "The majority of the sources cited that include wording similar to 'regardless of gender' either elsewhere clarify that this is not a requirement, or, when they do mention pansexuality directly, do not state that they are the same. The minority that do offer it as an additional definition all offer another non-binary definition that is inclusive of it." I disagree with this viewpoint, but I've already been over why.

Yes, I stated that "pansexuality is commonly either defined to be an alternative term for bisexuality or is directly subsumed under bisexuality, in which case it is still commonly stated to be an alternative definition of bisexuality." You replied, "I disagree on both counts. As I just pointed out, the majority of the sources do not define pansexuality to be an alternative term for bisexuality. At best they define it as an alternative term of one particular narrow definition of bisexuality which exists among other, broader definitions which encompass it. Even in that situation, I do not feel it's being true to the sources to say that the broader definition in gender is synonymous with pansexuality." My response is this: For years, I have seen pansexuality directly subsumed under bisexuality, called the "bisexual umbrella." And I have provided sources on this talk page showing that it is subsumed under bisexuality. It is called bisexuality by some of these sources, or is clearly presented as an alternative term and/or alternative definition for bisexuality simply because some people consider bisexuality to be binary. The same goes for polysexuality. You can see that the Wikipedia article for that concept is even smaller. The following is even quoted (and sourced) in that article: "Authors Linda Garnets and Douglas Kimmel state that polysexual is a sexual identity 'used by people who recognize that the term bisexual reifies the gender dichotomy that underlies the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, implying that bisexuality is nothing more than a hybrid combination of these gender and sexual dichotomies." In the literature, rarely is pansexuality considered a distinct concept from bisexuality. And it's even rarer that polysexuality is considered a distinct concept from bisexuality. There is scarce literature on pansexuality and polysexuality. And the "regardless of gender" definition of bisexuality is not a narrow definition of bisexuality.

We disagree on the "may or may not" and "might" aspects. No point in arguing that any further.

You stated, "As I said before, if a source lists multiple non-binary definitions, one being broader and inclusive of the other, I don't think it makes sense to only use the more narrow of the two in the beginning of the article. Also, the fact that some sources don't include such a narrow definition in the first place in their non-binary definitions makes me think that information should be left of the 'definitions' section." I've already argued against you on this. I stated, "You keep arguing that 'not limited to' is a broader definition of bisexuality. What sources do you have stating that this is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality? The point of the second definition is to give the non-binary viewpoint of bisexuality, and to note that the non-binary viewpoint often aligns with pansexuality." Stating that bisexuality is "regardless of gender" is not a narrow definition of bisexuality. And your argument that it is a narrow definition of bisexuality is the first argument I've heard in that regard. People usually argue that "bisexuality is sexual attraction to males and females" or "bisexuality is sexual attraction to men and women" are narrow definitions of bisexuality, while "regardless of gender" ("irrespective of gender" or similar) is the broader definition. For bisexuality, rarely do I see people even arguing "not limited to"; they usually choose "regardless of."

You stated that "bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females" is the binary definition. That is what I was stating. I was also stating that "or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender" is redundant because it will be interpreted to mean the same thing as the binary definition since it goes without saying that bisexuality is "sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender," and since most people do not follow the sex and gender distinction and rather think in terms of two when it comes to biological sex or gender. I am stating that "toward both males and females" and "not limited to a single sex or gender" will mean the same thing to most people because most people think in a binary way when it comes to biological sex and gender. My suggestion of "more than one sex or gender" is likely be considered redundant to those who think with a binary viewpoint as well, but I think it's better than stating "not limited to a single sex or gender."

You said that you don't understand my statement that "not limited to a single sex or gender" is "is not broad enough regarding the many bisexuals who state 'regardless of gender.' And with use of 'single,' that second definition does not equate to pansexuality while the lead is trying to address pansexuality as well." You argued: " 'Not limited to a single sex or gender' is automatically inclusive of anyone who is attracted 'regardless of gender'. It's not 'not broad enough', It's more broad. The fact that it does not equate to pansexuality is deliberate, as all the sources that equate any definition of bisexuality to pansexuality also include a separate definition of bisexuality which is broader and encompass that definition. And on top of that, many do not include any such definition equating it to pansexuality in the first place. I think it's fine to address pansexuality in the lead, but we absolutely should not be equating the broader, non-binary definition of bisexuality to it, as it is not true to the source material." We've been over the fact that people view bisexuality differently; I've provided sources on this. Maybe we are interpreting "single" differently. I've been interpreting "single" to mean "one," as in "not limited to one sex or gender." Maybe you are interpreting "single" to mean "any," as in "not limited to any sex or gender"? But if so, I point out that the lead already states "any sex or gender identity." If, to you, "not limited to a single sex or gender" was automatically inclusive of anyone who is attracted "regardless of gender," I'm not sure why you are arguing that the former is bisexuality and that the latter is pansexuality. You would not have a problem with any equating, since "not limited to a single sex or gender" is one definition of bisexuality, just like "regardless of" is, and since, to you, the two mean the same thing. Going by sources, the latter just so happens to equate to pansexuality. And that is all the lead is currently stating -- that "any sex or gender identity" is also pansexuality. The use of "not limited to a single sex or gender" is not broader than "regardless of." Furthermore, as I've already shown with sources, sources do not define pansexuality as "not limited to a single sex or gender"; they state "pansexual (someone who is not limited in sexual attraction with regard to biological sex, gender identity, or gender expression) or "those not limited in sexual attraction based on gender, gender assigned at birth, or gender identity (APA, 2013)." They don't use "single." And, so far, you have not provided any reliable sources showing bisexuality using "single" either. Stating "this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality" is supported in the article since the very first source given in the article for that piece states, "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality, which refers to attraction to individuals of both sexes... Those who identify as bisexual feel that gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation should not be a focal point in potential relationships."

You argued, "Again, it is stating that people who are only attracted to men and women are not bisexual in terms of the second definition. If we are to list two definitions in the lead, one binary and one non-binary, I don't see why the non-binary definition listed should be a narrow definition only given by some of the sources, rather than the broader definition which is better supported among all the source material, and entirely encompass said narrow definition." I disagree with this viewpoint. I've alrealy been over why.

You stated that I'm confusing you with the following line: "And I repeat that even among the sources that do state 'not limited to', 'not limited in,' 'not limited by' for bisexuality, it's common that they don't state this as a broader definition of bisexuality; they usually give it as the initial or sole definition. You keep arguing that 'not limited to' is a broader definition of bisexuality. What sources do you have stating that this is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality?" You argued, "They are presenting it as the 'initial' or 'sole' definition for the specific reason that it is broader and all-encompassing of all the other more narrow definitions. How isn't that presenting it as a broader definition? They don't need to specifically say it is broader if they present multiple definitions and it is the broadest one. They don't need to explicitly call it a 'broader definition' if any other definition that has ever existed is more narrow than it. It's broad because it literally is the broadest definition provided by any of the source material." And you are confusing me too. That definition is only given as the sole definition sometimes. The sources do not state that it is a broader definition of bisexuality. You are the only one arguing that it is the broader definition, and you seem to be arguing that it's broader than "regardless of." So I asked you what sources do you have showing this. I have provided sources showing that when there is discussion of a broader definition of bisexuality, the words "regardless of," "irrespective of" and similar are used. The sources do need to be explicit in supporting you, or at least very clear in supporting you, if you are going to argue things about what they mean; this is why I've pointed to WP:Synthesis (one of or policies).

You said, "I would disagree and say that the point of the second definition is simply to show that there is a non-binary definition of bisexuality in the first place, after stating the binary one. Noting that the non-binary definition includes pansexuality is a nice bit of information, I don't think it should be considered a reason to include the non-binary definition in the first place. Even if pansexuality didn't exist, we would still be including the second definition." This was in response to my argument that "[t]he point of the second definition is to give the non-binary viewpoint of bisexuality, and to note that the non-binary viewpoint often aligns with pansexuality." The non-binary definition, going by sources that discuss binary and non-binary definitions of bisexuality, give "regardless of," "irrespective of" and similar when noting a non-binary view of bisexuality. And this non-binary view of bisexuality is the same thing as pansexuality. We note this in the lead, per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an overview of the article and include its most significant aspects. The bisexuality/pansexuality aspect, which is often a debate, is a significant aspect of the bisexuality topic. And since it is important and is addressed in the Definitions section of this article, we include it in the lead. It is not some trivial tidbit.

You argued that I keep "bringing up 'Sex and Society'. For the last time. It says they interchangeable in some contexts, and then goes on to explain their differences. That is not defining them synonymously." And for the last time, we state "sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality," which is very clearly supported by "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality." Also, "sometimes synonymously" is a thing, and while enough scholars point out a difference between "interchangeably" and "synonymously," others state or are clear that they are so similar in some cases that they are the same thing.

You argued that "not limited to a single sex or gender" does not "need to be explicitly stated to be more inclusive. It literally is broader and more inclusive. Think about it. Imagine you have person A who is only attracted to men and women. Person B is attracted to people regardless of gender (aka pansexual). Person C's attraction isn't limited to men and women, but gender still has a significant effect on how he experiences attraction. Now you have 3 definitions for bisexuality. Definition 1 is the binary definition. Definition 2 is your 'inclusive viewpoint'('regardless of gender,' 'irrespective of gender,' or 'gender is irrelevant.'). Definition 3 is my 'inclusive viewpoint'('not limited to a single sex or gender'). Now lets see who fits under each definition. Definition 1:[person A]. Definition 2:[person B]. Definition 3:[Person A, Person B, Person C]. Definition 3 is clearly the most inclusive." I've already addressed you on this a little above in this latest comment of mine, but, with this latest paragraph, I can now see how you are defining "more" or "most inclusive." I disagree with you because "not limited to a single sex or gender" can viewed differently, as is clear by the two of us viewing it differently. For example, I noted viewing "single" as "one" compared to seeing it as "any." And when it comes to stating "not limited to one sex or gender," that is obviously not as broad as "regardless of" when it comes to considering a romantic partner, which is even clear by your example. "Regardless of" is most inclusive. The issue you have is that you feel that we are excluding bisexuals who may not be sexually attracted to all sexes and genders. I don't feel that we are. But my "more than one sex or gender" proposal takes care of that.

You stated, "They are sometimes defined the same, but most of the sources with such definitions also include a broader definition in which pansexuality is a subset of bisexuality." With probably the exception of how you are defining "broader definition," we agree on that; I noted above in this reply that pansexuality is commonly subsumed under bisexuality, but you seemed to challenge me on that. I understand that bisexuality is not usually defined to mean the same thing as pansexuality. I already noted that the binary view of bisexuality is the most common definition of bisexuality in the literature. I am stating that when bisexuality is defined broadly, as in sources specifically noting a broader definition or noting that the term is moving away from the binary definition, that definition is "regardless of" or similar, which is pansexuality. And I'm noting that, in the literature, pansexuality is rarely considered completely distinct from bisexuality.

You stated that "The one given by the sources most frequently is that gender may or may not be relevant." Not true. Only some sources use "may or may not" language.

As for my interpretation that you find funny, I don't think you understood what I was stating. And since this debate is long enough as it is, with various different interpretations, I will not be elaborating. But regarding your interpretation of the source stating "that pansexuality is 'sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes (may also be referred to as bisexuality).'", regardless of how you view it, it is stating that bisexuality may also be defined as "sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes," and that this definition of bisexuality is pansexuality.

Regarding "Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices", I'm aware of what that sentence states. I mainly listed that source because the similar ways that bisexuals and pansexuals define bisexuality show that bisexuality is defined similarly to how pansexuality is defined, or same way that pansexuality is defined. This includes not only bisexuals defining bisexuality as not solely binary, but also pansexuals not defining it as solely binary.

As for your response to my previous suggestion, it's been established that we disagree on the "broader" stuff. And as I noted above, the lead included "encompasses" before. It used to state, "and may also encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of any gender identity or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality." I changed it not only for brevity, but also because it was not enough for readers (see the talk page); they wanted it to be clear that bisexuality is defined in the broader ways, not simply that bisexuality may encompass broadness. They have responded better to "or."

As for your response to my latest proposal, good. That is the proposal I want to go with to settle this dispute. I do not want to argue this matter any longer. Per my WP:LEAD argument above, I disagree with your argument that "the last sentence may be better suited there." This aspect is already there. The lead should include the pansexuality aspect, just like the Definitions section does. And considering the many bisexuals who define bisexuality as "regardless of," not having this aspect in the lead is not a valid option; the literature, and the many edits I and others have had to deal with before this article was WP:Full protected, show that. WP:LEAD is also about what is WP:Undue, and "regardless of" is not a WP:Undue addition at all.

I do not like your "some bisexuals experience attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality" proposal because it is excluding the fact that bisexuality may be defined as "regardless of" and is rather regulating the matter to some bisexuals being inclusive of all sexes and genders. As I noted above, with regard to "encompass," this was somewhat an issue before. Your latest proposal fails to note that bisexuality may also be considered pansexuality, despite the fact that this a significant topic of bisexuality, as shown by sources I've included. The bisexual vs. pansexual debate is significant, but, at the moment for the lead, we simply note that the two may be considered the same thing without mentioning the debate regarding the inclusivity of the term bisexual. This does not mean that the inclusivity debate will never be included in the lead. The current lead is lacking. This article is a B-class article. It is nowhere near WP:GA or WP:FA level.

As for your other latest proposal, we would need WP:Reliable sources stating that "more than one sex or gender" includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. Otherwise, it's a WP:Synthesis violation. Other than that, I could go with that proposal. But again, to go ahead and put this dispute to bed, I would rather that we go ahead and agree with implementing my latest proposal that you "don't feel is wrong or misleading." Before implementing it, I'd need to add more source and adjust the existing sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been pretty busy recently. Regarding your first paragraph, I think maybe you're misunderstanding my point. You said "In the literature, rarely is pansexuality considered a distinct concept from bisexuality. And it's even rarer that polysexuality is considered a distinct concept from bisexuality." My question is, by "distinct" do you mean separate and mutually exclusive? Because that's not what I'm arguing. I'm taking issue with the statement "pansexuality is commonly either defined to be an alternative term for bisexuality or is directly subsumed under bisexuality, in which case it is still commonly stated to be an alternative definition of bisexuality." I do not believe that "subsumed under bisexuality," and "an alternative definition of bisexuality." are even remotely similar concept. If something is subsumed under something, it is not an "alternative definition" of it, it's a specific type of it.

You also said "And the "regardless of gender" definition of bisexuality is not a narrow definition of bisexuality." And elaborated on this idea in your second paragraph. I disagree. Obviously it is not as narrow as the binary definition, but it is objectively narrower than the "may or may not be limited by gender" or "not limited to a single gender" definition. You also repeated your question "What sources do you have stating that this is a broader definition of bisexuality rather than simply listing it as a definition of bisexuality?" which is something I already addressed, and will address again below.

Regarding your third paragraph, I understand how those wordings could be redundant to someone who isn't considering non-binary genders, but the fact a second definition is listed in itself should make it clear that there is a distinction between the two, so I see that as a non-issue. You said, "My suggestion of "more than one sex or gender" is likely be considered redundant to those who think with a binary viewpoint as well, but I think it's better than stating "not limited to a single sex or gender."". I don't personally see why you think it's better, but I'm willing to accept either. If we wanted to be especially clear of the difference and avoid the "false redundancy" problem, a wording like "may or may not be limited by gender" would be useful, but I think this would make it too long.

As for your forth paragraph, I think you are misunderstanding my point, so I will clarify. By "single" I do mean "one". "Regardless of" and "not limited to one" are different concepts in my mind. More specifically, "regardless of" is narrower than "not limited to one".

→"Going by sources, the latter just so happens to equate to pansexuality. And that is all the lead is currently stating -- that "any sex or gender identity" is also pansexuality."

I don't have any issue with that. I have an issue with defining the broader definition of bisexuality as synonymous to that, because "not limited to a single..." is objectively broader. For the entirety of this paragraph you seem to be completely misunderstanding the issues I'm bringing up.

In your fifth paragraph, you are once again arguing that "The sources do not state that it is a broader definition of bisexuality". This is a non-issue. As I've explained, it is objectively broader than any other definition provided. You said " I have provided sources showing that when there is discussion of a broader definition of bisexuality, the words "regardless of," "irrespective of" and similar are used". First of all, those sources did not provide that as the sole broader definition. They either presented it alongside another definition which is logical equivalent to "not limited to a single sex or gender", or they combined those two aspects into a single definition with the use of language such as "may or may not"(languages which is not present in the sourced definitions of pansexuality). There is no issue with using language like "regardless of" as long as that additional aspect is included too. One way of accomplishing that is to use wording such as "attraction to more than one" or "not limited to a single", which are automatically inclusive of both of those aspects. But all that aside, there is a source that does present my definition explicitly as a broader definition. "The definition of bisexuality can vary, as some people define bisexuality in terms of being sexually attracted to only men and women (adhering to a gender binary), whereas other people define bisexuality much more broadly. In the interest of inclusivity, the definition used here is a broader definition. Specifically, bisexuality is a sexual identity that describes an individual who (a) has the capacity for sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one gender and (b) self-identifies as bisexual. [...] Similar to how the term queer is used as an umbrella term to capture the spectrum of sexual and gender minority identities, bisexuality is at times used as an umbrella for all non-monosexual sexual identities. [...]."

→"The non-binary definition, going by sources that discuss binary and non-binary definitions of bisexuality, give "regardless of," "irrespective of" and similar when noting a non-binary view of bisexuality. And this non-binary view of bisexuality is the same thing as pansexuality."

We've been over this so many times now, and it's not. As I just stated, the sources do not support that being the sole non-binary definition of bisexuality. To take that one aspect of the definition and, due to its similarity with pansexuality claim that they are synonymous, despite numerous source material highlighting differences between the two, is absolutely synthesis.

Regarding 'Sex and Society', as I've already explained, "sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality," isn't good enough, because it doesn't clarify when that is true. That fact is that if pansexuality is a subsumed under bisexuality, "sometimes" in the sentence just means "when it meets the definition of bisexuality". As I've stated before, you wouldn't say "Rectangles are sometimes alternatively termed Squares". While technically true, it's misleading because they it is only true when such a rectangle meets very specific secondary criteria. Those criteria, or at least the existence of such criteria, should be mentioned.

In your 8th paragraph, I'm glad you are clear on why I believe "Regardless of" is narrower. You stated, "I disagree with you because "not limited to a single sex or gender" can viewed differently, as is clear by the two of us viewing it differently. For example, I noted viewing "single" as "one" compared to seeing it as "any."' To be honest, I'm not even sure how anyone would interpret "single" to mean "any" in the first place. I was under the impression that you only arrived at that strange interpretation as a result of misunderstanding my words. I don't feel that the potential for such an interpretation is a realistic issue. If you disagree please explain why. I think its far more likely that someone would interpret "sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality," as stating that the broader definition of bisexuality is synonymous with pansexuality.

→"And when it comes to stating "not limited to one sex or gender," that is obviously not as broad as "regardless of" when it comes to considering a romantic partner, which is even clear by your example.

I'm afraid I don't see why not. Do you mean that and individual who meets the definition "regardless of" have a larger set of potential romantic partners that some individuals who meet the "not limited to a single sex or gender" definition? Obviously yes I agree. That's not the discussion here. That fact doesn't make "regardless of" a broader definition. The broader definition is the one that includes the most people, not the one that requires everyone in it have the largest possible group of potential romantic partners. If one definition is entirely subsumed under another, you can't argue that the latter is not the broader of the two. I don't recall ever challenging you on the idea that pansexuality is a subset of bisexuality, and I don't know why I would have.

→"I understand that bisexuality is not usually defined to mean the same thing as pansexuality.I already noted that the binary view of bisexuality is the most common definition of bisexuality in the literature. I am stating that when bisexuality is defined broadly, as in sources specifically noting a broader definition or noting that the term is moving away from the binary definition, that definition is "regardless of" or similar, which is pansexuality. And I'm noting that, in the literature, pansexuality is rarely considered completely distinct from bisexuality."

I never argued they were completely distinct. You seem to think the existence of a binary definition is the only difference between the two, and thus the broader definition of bisexuality is the same as pansexuality. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm arguing that is not the case. As I've pointed out many times, no source provides the sole definition of bisexuality as "regardless of". Rather, the norm for a strictly broader definition in the source material is something along the lines of "may or my not be limited by gender". If you interpret the "may or may not" as being there for the sole purpose of including the binary definition and nothing else, that is your own interpretation and not supported by the sources. Even the sources which to talk explicitly about "broader definitions" mostly use language that doesn't require attraction to be "regardless of gender".

→"But regarding your interpretation of the source stating "that pansexuality is 'sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes (may also be referred to as bisexuality).'", regardless of how you view it, it is stating that bisexuality may also be defined as "sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes," and that this definition of bisexuality is pansexuality."

I must disagree here. If pansexuality is included under bisexuality (as that very source states), then of course pansexuality my also be referred to as bisexuality. That doesn't mean the source is presenting "sexual attraction toward people of all gender identities and biological sexes" as a definition for bisexuality, it simply means that people who meet that definition also meet the definition of bisexuality (because bisexuality has a broader definition).

As for your mention of the previous wording of the article: "and may also encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of any gender identity or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality", this has the same problem. It fails to clarify that "sometimes" is actually referring to a specific criterium, and thus can be very easily misinterpreted as presenting pansexuality as synonymous with the broader definition of bisexuality rather than subsumed under it.

→"And considering the many bisexuals who define bisexuality as "regardless of," not having this aspect in the lead is not a valid option [...] I do not like your "some bisexuals experience attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality" proposal because it is excluding the fact that bisexuality may be defined as "regardless of" and is rather regulating the matter to some bisexuals being inclusive of all sexes and genders."

I guess that's really what we're disagreeing on. In order for Bisexual people to actually define bisexuality as "regardless of" (i.e. synonymously with pansexuality), they would have to believe that Person A and C in my example are not bisexual. I know my personal experience does not matter, but in the actual bisexual community, and among bisexual organizations, I've never come across any instances of bisexual people making such claims. Many bisexuals define their own bisexuality that way as it applies to them but that's not the same as defining the bisexuality that way for everyone, or claiming people who don't meet that definition are not bisexual. Again, that's personal experience. As for the sources, I can't find any that seem to reference such exclusionary bisexuals either. Some support the idea that some bisexuals describe their own bisexuality in such a way, but there's no real mention of them defining the word "bisexuality" to mean that specifically, as it applies to others. If you disagree, please note which source. I've just looked through them again. Because of this, I'm not totally convinced "regardless of gender" should even be included as it’s own separate definition of bisexuality, but rather one way in which bisexuality manifests in a person. I think this interpretation is honest to the source material. Recall: "Among bisexuals there are broadly three positions on gender. First: 'gender is irrelevant', or such an insignificant difference between people as to be discountable. Bisexuals who hold this position 'love people'. Second, bisexuals are precisely that -- bisexual -- not gendered, and are erotically attracted to both sexes, but to people of similar gender attributes [...] And third, gender is a mutable, but nevertheless important way of recognizing and expressing particular differences." It does not appear to state these bisexuals only accept their 'position' as the definition of bisexuality and reject the other two, but rather that their 'position' is a reflection of how bisexuality manifests in themselves, and the other two are how it manifests in others. Now, if you wish to include “regardless of” as a definition in the definitions section of the article I won’t contest it because it certainly is present in some of the source material, despite it being questionable whether it is really being presented as a definition. But I don’t really believe it needs to be shown in the lead, as the point of the lead should be to note that there is a binary and non-binary definition, and it doesn’t make sense to choose a narrower non-binary definition that is underrepresented in the sources.

That said, I understand you think it's important to list the "regardless of gender" definition as definition, and even though I don't necessarily feel it is very explicitly supported as it's own definition in the source material, I see no problem with including it in the Definitions section.

→"As for your other latest proposal, we would need WP:Reliable sources stating that "more than one sex or gender" includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity.""

I don’t feel this is really necessary. It’s objectively impossible to be attracted to people regardless of sex or gender identity without also being attracted to more than one gender or sex. Regardless, the sources do acknowledge that “more than one sex or gender” includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. In “Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories”, it spends nearly a full page addressing how the definition of bisexuality has expanded beyond the binary definition, including mentioning that this includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. It also quotes at least one individual who defining bisexuality as such, at least in terms of their own attraction. The source then goes on to state ‘’“This book uses the following definition of bisexuality: 'attraction to people of more than one gender', and the following definitions of bisexuals: 'people who are attracted to other people who are of more than one gender'. It is acknowledged that this is a strategic move that overlooks the binary composition of the word.”’’ directly following this. This is clear in the implication that this definition ("more than one sex or gender”) includes the definition mentioned before (“regardless of sex or gender identity.”) Also recall again in “The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies” it states ‘’”The definition of bisexuality can vary, as some people define bisexuality in terms of being sexually attracted to only men and women (adhering to a gender binary), whereas other people define bisexuality much more broadly. In the interest of inclusivity, the definition used here is a broader definition. Specifically, bisexuality is a sexual identity that describes an individual who (a) has the capacity for sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one gender and (b) self-identifies as bisexual. [...] Similar to how the term queer is used as an umbrella term to capture the spectrum of sexual and gender minority identities, bisexuality is at times used as an umbrella for all non-monosexual sexual identities. […].”’’ This is again a clear implication that the "more than one sex or gender” definition is broader, and is inclusive of the other definitions mentioned, including “regardless of sex or gender identity.”

I would ask that you reconsider the first suggestion, as I think it’s best, but if you can come around on the second that’s great too.

--Thefoxyfox (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thefoxyfox, it's been weeks since our last posts on this topic. Taking that into account, the fact that I usually take days to reply to you, and that we keep going in circles and disagreeing, and that our replies are usually very long, I do not think that this discussion has been productive (at least in terms of improving the article, unless the result actually does end up improving it) and I would rather wrap it up. Instead of continuing to debate you point by point on interpretations (although I am tempted to respond to some parts of your latest post), I will repeat the following: "As for your other latest proposal, we would need WP:Reliable sources stating that 'more than one sex or gender' includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. Otherwise, it's a WP:Synthesis violation. Other than that, I could go with that proposal. But again, to go ahead and put this dispute to bed, I would rather that we go ahead and agree with implementing my latest proposal that you 'don't feel is wrong or misleading.' Before implementing it, I'd need to add more source and adjust the existing sources."

That is all I can do for you as far as compromises go. We have tried compromising over and over again. Per everything that I've stated on the matter (Wikipedia rules included), the best I can do is to go with the proposal that you "don't feel is wrong or misleading." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And do remember that this proposal does include "more than one sex or gender." That is what you want in the lead. It also includes "regardless of," which is what I want in the lead (well, either that or "people of any sex or gender identity" in place of "regardless of sex or gender identity"). A compromise. The proposal is: "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality." I do not see a better compromise than this. And I can reliably source this whole proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand and I do again apologize for the delay. You said "As for your other latest proposal, we would need WP:Reliable sources stating that 'more than one sex or gender' includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity." I'll try to provide some.

The Bi Resource Center, which happens to be linked in the article for pansexuality, states "The Bisexual Resource Center, and many other leaders in the bi+ community uses “bi” “bisexual” and “bi+” to mean anyone who is attracted romantically and/or sexually to more than one gender, otherwise called “non-monosexual” or “middle” identities. This includes labels like pansexual,.

The American Institute of Bisexuality, also referenced in the pansexuality article states "Bisexuality describes anyone whose attractions are not limited to one sex. [...] Identity labels like pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, and ambisexual also describe a person with homosexual and heterosexual attractions, and therefore people who have chosen those labels are also bisexual. 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 self-identities seek to clearly express the fact that gender does not factor into their own sexuality," Assuming we can agree that not limited to one sex" is functionally equivalent to "more than one sex" then this is adequate.

I will also include from above, two sources we've already discussed which state this.→ In “Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories”, it spends nearly a full page addressing how the definition of bisexuality has expanded beyond the binary definition, including mentioning that this includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. It also quotes at least one individual who defining bisexuality as such, at least in terms of their own attraction. The source then goes on to state ‘’“This book uses the following definition of bisexuality: 'attraction to people of more than one gender', and the following definitions of bisexuals: 'people who are attracted to other people who are of more than one gender'. It is acknowledged that this is a strategic move that overlooks the binary composition of the word.”’’ directly following this. This is clear in the implication that this definition ("more than one sex or gender”) includes the definition mentioned before (“regardless of sex or gender identity.”) Also recall again in “The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies” it states ‘’”The definition of bisexuality can vary, as some people define bisexuality in terms of being sexually attracted to only men and women (adhering to a gender binary), whereas other people define bisexuality much more broadly. In the interest of inclusivity, the definition used here is a broader definition. Specifically, bisexuality is a sexual identity that describes an individual who (a) has the capacity for sexual and/or romantic attraction to more than one gender and (b) self-identifies as bisexual. [...] Similar to how the term queer is used as an umbrella term to capture the spectrum of sexual and gender minority identities, bisexuality is at times used as an umbrella for all non-monosexual sexual identities. […].”’’ This is again a clear implication that the "more than one sex or gender” definition is broader, and is inclusive of the other definitions mentioned, including “regardless of sex or gender identity.”

Is there any reason you cannot reliably source the following?

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. Some bisexuals experience attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality."

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. Some bisexuals experience attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. This is also termed pansexuality."

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. This latter aspect includes (sexual and romantic) attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also called pansexuality."

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. This latter aspect includes (sexual and romantic) attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also called pansexuality."

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or romantic or sexual attraction not limited to a single sex or gender. This latter aspect includes attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also knows as pansexuality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefoxyfox (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bi Resource Center is not a scholarly source, and it is not an authoritative source for sexual orientation. Sources like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association are. I'm not even sure I'd call The Bi Resource Center a WP:Reliable source. It's currently used in the Pansexuality article via WP:In-text attribution, meaning to note its own definition/opinion. It's used in a WP:About self way.

You stated, "Assuming we can agree that 'not limited to one sex' is functionally equivalent to 'more than one sex' then this is adequate." I've had issue with "not limited to a single sex or gender" and "not limited to one sex or gender." Instead, per sources, I have supported "not limited to," "not limited in," "not limited by" without the use of "one" or "a single," but you've objected to that. We've been over it a number of times before, which is one reason why I was clear that I will not continue to debate all of this with you.

Regarding the "Bisexuality: Identities, Politics, and Theories" source, you stated, "This is clear in the implication that this definition ('more than one sex or gender') includes the definition mentioned before ('regardless of sex or gender identity.')" We should not go on our own interpretations. The WP:Synthesis policy is clear on that. We need a WP:Reliable source explicitly stating that "more than one sex or gender" includes sexual and romantic attraction regardless of sex or gender identity. I see no sources stating that "more than one sex or gender" is umbrella phrasing for "regardless of."

Regarding "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, you stated, "This is again a clear implication that the 'more than one sex or gender' definition is broader, and is inclusive of the other definitions mentioned, including 'regardless of sex or gender identity.'" Again, we should not go on our own interpretations. Also, we've been over the " 'more than one sex or gender' is the broader definition "aspect a number of times. This is what I mean by this discussion going in circles. I do not agree that "more than one sex or gender" is the broader definition, as in broader than "regardless of," and I repeat that there is no source stating that it is. Yes, we are looking at "broader" differently; I get that, since you are thinking in terms of "umbrella."

Speaking of clear implications, the fact I listed the sources to argue my viewpoint and that you are now using them to argue your viewpoint is a clear implication that we are not interpreting the sources the same way, which is more than abundantly clear by reading the wall of texts above.

You asked, "Is there any reason you cannot reliably source the following?" Yes. You keep suggesting wording that is not explicitly supported by the sources, and you keep wanting us to word the bisexuality definition in a way that you are satisfied with because of issues you have with "regardless of" in terms of bisexuality and pansexuality. I suggested, "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality." And you acknowledged that this wording is not misleading at all. Is there any valid reason you that you cannot compromise by accepting this wording? Compromising is not about completely satisfying one of the people involved; it's about meeting that person halfway. I have met you halfway.

Regarding your latest proposal, I've already argued against "some bisexuals experience attraction" because this puts the "regardless of" definition on one of the ways that bisexuals define bisexuality instead of simply making it clear that bisexuality may also be defined as "regardless of." There is no valid reason to do that; doing that seems to simply be an excuse to minimize the "regardless of" definition. We've already significantly disagreed on "not limited to a single sex or gender." I can, however, agree to use the following: "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. This latter aspect includes (sexual and romantic) attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also called pansexuality." But I can only agree to this if a reliable source explicitly supports it; I will not engage in WP:Synthesis. So I will look at the previous sources and at more sources and see if I can support this entire proposal with sources in a way that does not violate WP:Synthesis. But like I noted, I do not think that there any reliable sources that state that "more than one sex or gender" includes "regardless of sex or gender identity." And if that is the case, which I think it is, then I still feel that we should go with: "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction regardless of sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality." And that is likely what I will be going with, for reasons noted above and because you acknowledged that you do not find it misleading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bruce M. King and Pamela Reagan in the Textbook "Human Sexuality Today" define the sexualities by what one is most interested in. Bisexuals, by their definition, are those that show equal interest in males as well as females. This definition does not include those that call themselves bisexuals but predominantly seek one sex. I cannot exactly attest to where pansexuals fit here. My assumption would be that they are bisexuals that are equally attracted to intersex or transsexual individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabrams13 (talk • contribs)

Does King and Reagan explicitly say they're equally interested, or is that your interpretation? Most other sources say differently. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That one can only be bisexual if equally sexually attracted to both sexes is one of the bisexuality debates, and is currently mentioned in this section of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

___

References

Janis Joplin bisexual?

I have it on good authority, from Country Joe McDonald of Country Joe & The Fish, that Janis Joplin was indeed bisexual. McDonald quotes in his autobiography in the section, "Janis" that:

"I rode out to the Woodstock Festival on a plane that also carried Janis’s girlfriend at the time, Peggy Casserta. I knew Peggy from the Haight Ashbury days when I lived with Janis in her apartment on Lyon Street. I did not care that Janis was bisexual or that her and Peggy were lovers. That did not enter our conversations on the plane that day. I don’t know if Peggy knew of my liaison with Janis in the hotel. It never came up. Peggy has told the press and said in her book that I stood Janis up one day and that is why we broke up ... not true. We just broke up."

McDonald had lived with Joplin in the 1960s before he left her for his wife at the time, Robin. She showed a lot of anger toward him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.98.75 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Bisexuality

When the article defines bisexuality, it states that it is attraction to both males and females, which is very limiting. It ignores the reality of intersex bodies, and that sex is a spectrum just like gender is. I believe a better definition would be "attraction to more than one gender" or "attraction to people of the same/similar gender to oneself and people of different genders from oneself." These are definitions provided by bisexual community resources such as The Bisexual Index (http://www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/HomePage). I believe the current definition in this article contributes to the erasure of bisexuality because it shows bisexuality as reinforcing a gender or sex binary, and it ignores the definition provided by the bisexual community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.82.62 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the talk archives. Wikipedia is not prescriptivist; the project tries to describe how words and concepts are used and understood, not how they should be used. To accomplish this, Wikipedia tries to draw on established, reputable sources. There are a lot of very good reasons for this, but it does mean it often lags behind when more progressive definitions start to become preferred. The current definition has three sources, one from the American Psychological Association, one from the American Psychiatric Association, and one from GLAAD. It doesn't look to me like the Bisexual Index's website meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Regardless, the concept you are describing sounds a lot more like pansexuality than bisexuality. Since 'Bisexual' has 'binary' baked into its etymology, altering the definition is going to take some solid, solid sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell. And, yes, this matter has been discussed before on this talk page. IP, see the #Seems like Dispute Resolution might be necessary: Pansexuality discussion above, which addresses why the WP:Lead (introduction) is defined the way that it is; the definition you want is clearly in the WP:Lead and lower in the article (in the "Sexual orientation, identity, behavior" section), but that is not the definition that the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources use for bisexuality. Furthermore, bisexualindex.org.uk is not a WP:Reliable source and even states, in its "Bi means two so bisexuality is transphobic" section, that "there's some way to go before our definition is the most common one." For a fuller picture, they relay the following: "Bisexuality isn't an attempt to pigeonhole gender, it's the freedom to feel attraction without blinkers! But we agree that 'both' is an oddly limiting word for the category of 'everyone else' - this is why we say 'more than one gender' at the Bisexual Index. Ultimately though, we don't think anyone is obliged to use the word 'bisexual', and we agree there's some way to go before our definition is the most common one." The bisexual community is diverse, and a lot of them do indeed go by the binary models of bisexuality that you object to, while others embrace and/or advocate for non-binary models...sometimes changing over to the sexual identity pansexuality to indicate this.

And like I stated here at the bottom of the "An important point" discussion at the Transsexualism talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction [debate] exists ... I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Kpielmei (talk · contribs), regarding this and this at the Polysexuality article, and this and this at the Bisexuality article, see what is stated above in this section. Both definitions (meaning also the definition you consider non-biphobic) are included in the Bisexuality article. And what you call the dictionary definition is not simply the dictionary definition. If you reply to this, reply here on this talk page, not at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I tweaked the lead with the "or" wording, which is the type of wording I noted at the end of the #Seems like Dispute Resolution might be necessary: Pansexuality discussion above, because it will help make the text less inflammatory for those somehow thinking we are being strict with the definition/are ignoring the broader definition. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Shortened by removing the parentheses aspect with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

-sche, what do you mean by this (followup edit here), where you state, "some sources define bi *as* pan, it's misleading / incorrect to say they call pan a subset of bi."? I do not view the matter as incorrect. Many people view pansexuality as a subset of bisexuality, that pansexual is an alternative, more inclusive term to bisexual. They don't view pansexuality as completely distinct from bisexuality. The reason that I also don't view pansexuality as completely distinct is because pansexuality is not usually documented as a sexual orientation in the scientific literature (for valid reasons), which I made clear in the #Seems like Dispute Resolution might be necessary: Pansexuality discussion above. So if pansexual, going by various sources, is an alternative, more inclusive term to bisexual, how is it not a subset of bisexuality? Of course, there are also those who view it as distinct from bisexuality and as its own sexual orientation; this is why I have the lead of the Pansexuality article currently state, "Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a subset of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, like I noted above, the bisexuality community is diverse; the pansexuality community is a subset of that community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: As seen with this edit at the Pansexuality article, an IP changed my subset wording, arguing, "Changed 'subset' to 'superset' because the paragraph concludes by saying that pansexuality is more inclusive than bisexuality, i.e., a superset." And IronGargoyle reverted, stating, "A subset is a smaller group. A pansexual (attracted to all) is logically bisexual (attracted to two genders) but a bisexual is not necessarily pansexual." Anyway, I'm not hugely opposed to you having removed the subset wording in the Bisexuality article; I'm more so querying your reasoning for having done so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: "if pansexual ... is an alternative, more inclusive term to bisexual, how is it not a subset of bisexuality?": How would a more inclusive term be a subset of a less inclusive term? Some sources define "bisexuality" as attraction to men and women, some others define it more broadly, up to and including attraction to all genders. Sources define "pansexuality" as attraction to all genders. Pansexuality is thus either as broad as, or broader than, bisexuality; it is not narrower than (and so not a subset of) bisexuality. The article got this backwards by saying "Pansexuality may [...] be subsumed under bisexuality". -sche (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

-sche, it seems we are thinking of this from two different subset viewpoints. Even IronGargoyle seems to have defined "subset" differently. I'm thinking of it like this: Bisexuality is the one that is scientifically recognized as a sexual orientation. Bisexuality is considered the wider topic, with sub-topics. This is made perfectly clear by the Pansexuality article, where all these other terms, such as pansexual and fluid, are considered bi-categories. They are considered aspects of bisexuality, while others consider pansexuality to be distinct. This is also why the Bisexual community article currently states, "also known as the bisexual/pansexual, bi/pan/fluid, or non-monosexual community." To me, all of this makes pansexuality a subset of bisexuality. It's similar to how asexuality (another topic I work on) has sub-identities with regard to the gray asexual topic, which can be considered broader. Like I stated at Talk:Gray asexuality (see the "Keep or merge article, and the topic of sourcing" section), "gray asexuality is an aspect of asexuality because asexuality is not consistently defined as 'no sexual attraction.'" Some people, however, treat gray asexuality as distinct or somewhat distinct from asexuality, which is why we currently have a Gray asexuality article. I see where you are coming from, though, and why you made this edit at the Pansexuality article. But, per what I stated in this post, I think "aspect" would be better.

On a side note: I don't think there is any need for us to WP:Ping each other to this discussion; so I'll stop pinging you in this section after this post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Subcategory" is clearer than "aspect" in this case; I changed your "superset" wording to "subcategory" at the Pansexuality article, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, I see where you are coming from now. I think we need to find some other language than "sub-", then, because "sub-" is too often going to be understood as a claim about the breadth of the orientation / topic. Perhaps something in the vein of "pansexuality is sometimes treated as a broader category of bisexuality"? Or "broader type" (but not "[broader] subcategory", which has the same problems as "subset" — logically, subcategories are narrower than categories, even in Wikipedia's category trees). -sche (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

-sche, for more on why I don't see the problem with "subset" or "subcategory" in this case, I'll refer to some sources (other than this one). What I'm trying to get across is that bisexuality is considered the wider topic, with pieces to that topic. Bisexuality may be considered an umbrella term of sorts, especially since terms like sexually fluid and similar are not scientifically recognized as sexual orientations; instead, they are commonly seen as alternative sexual identities for bisexual (as you know, I've noted that other people would disagree that pansexuality is an aspect of bisexuality, though). See this 2013 Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals source, from Sage Publications, page 116, for example; it states, "The identity 'bisexual' can be considered to be an umbrella term which includes all of the following groups and more: [...] People who don't see gender as a defining feature of their sexual attraction (some may also use terms like pansexual, omnisexual or ecosexual - see Glossary)." The source lists four bullet points; that's the third. And some would disagree with the source stating that the bisexual community prefers a definition that doesn't focus on men or women, or doesn't make it seem like the gender of the person is important, especially since it's often the case that a bisexual person prefers one gender over the over. This 2014 Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 98, states, "There are many other identity labels that could fall under the wider umbrella of bisexuality, such as pansexual, omnisexual, biromantic, or fluid (Eisner, 2013)." What these sources state is why I don't see pansexuality as the broader topic; it is broader in its definition, if going by the binary definition of bisexuality, but I don't see where it can be considered the broader topic. Pansexuality is a subtopic of bisexuality. I also think this is the point that IronGargoyle was trying to get across. So I'm not sure about stating something like "pansexuality is sometimes treated as a broader category of bisexuality" or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling pansexuality a "subtopic" of bisexuality might work, if the circumstances require a "sub-" word to be used, since "topic" would make it more clear that it isn't that pansexuality encompasses more or less than bisexuality, but that study of it is often subordinated to study of bisexuality. It still sounds a bit awkward, but I'm struggling to think of anything that would work better... perhaps just spelling out "study of pansexuality is often subordinated to study of bisexuality" (specific wording to be improved). -sche (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When one Googles "Subset definition," they get "a part of a larger group of related things. synonyms: subcategory, branch, subdivision, subsection, subsidiary." So per my "23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)" post above about bisexuality being the larger topic with branches, I can't see how "subset" is inappropriate in this case; that's why, minutes ago, I changed "subcategory" to "subset" at the Pansexuality article for now. "Subset" sounds better to me. The lead of that article currently states, "Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a subset of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity." To me, using "subcategory" does not flow as well as "subset." And using "subtopic" in place of "subset" does sound a little awkward, more awkward than using "subcategory" in its place. I would rather not elaborate by adding something like "study of pansexuality is often subordinated to study of bisexuality" to the lead; I will be expanding the Definitions section of the Bisexuality article to address that, if no one beats me to it first. In that case, we could link to the Definitions section of the Bisexuality article for context. But, for now, since I'm open to compromise, how do you feel about changing "subset" to "branch" or "subdivision"? The "subdivision" wording sounds a little more encyclopedic than "branch." Or we could state, "Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or an attraction subsumed under the broader definition of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity." Something like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Branch" sounds good. "Subdivision" faces many of the same problems as "subset". We could clarify (re "study") in a footnote rather than in the text of the lead itself, or explicitly link readers to the relevant section of the article body (I have seen a few articles do that), or as you note, link to the Definitions section of this article, although none of those things may be strictly necessary at this point. -sche (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I still disagree with you about "subset," it seems that "branch" is the best compromise for now. I certainly don't agree with calling pansexuality a "broader subtopic". For one, bisexuality is not a subtopic, so it would make more sense to refer to pansexuality as a "broader topic." But, per above, it's not the broader topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

The sentences

In 2005, the belief that bisexuality must involve equal sexual/romantic attraction was further perpetuated by researchers Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers, and J. Michael Bailey,[25] who concluded that bisexuality is extremely rare in men. This was based on results of controversial penile plethysmograph testing when viewing pornographic material involving only men and pornography involving only women.

are inaccurate.

In 2005, researchers Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers, and J. Michael Bailey,[25] published a study in which they did not find distinctly bisexual arousal patterns in about 30 men who identified as bisexual who were recruited by ads in gay and alternative press. This was based on results of penile plethysmograph testing when viewing pornographic material involving only men and pornography involving only women. The report stated that "in terms of identity and behavior, bisexual men clearly exist."

The sentences

Moreover, the assertion of Bailey that "for men arousal is orientation" was criticized by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) as a simplification which neglects to account for behavior and self-identification.[26] Bailey's study also recruited men via advertisements in "gay oriented magazines" and an alternative paper in Chicago, using no vetting process other than a person's choice to call themselves bi in response to an ad for a paid study.[24] Further, some researchers hold that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness (erotic sensations, affection, admiration) that constitutes sexual attraction.[24] The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the study and The New York Times coverage of it flawed and biphobic.[27]

are personal attacks on Mike Bailey, who has strident enemies. The FAIR and NGLTF were worked up by those activists. And the news is stale. I would bring it current with what follows below, and keep ONLY this:

Some researchers hold that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness (erotic sensations, affection, admiration) that constitutes sexual attraction.[24]

It was reported that Bailey's study was misinterpreted and misreported.[28] In 2008, in a new study with the same technology but different recruiting criteria and stimuli, Bailey said he found bisexual genital arousal patterns in men.[28][29] In 2011, he and other researchers reported that specifically among men with a history of several romantic and sexual relationships with members of both sexes, high levels of sexual arousal were found in response to both male and female sexual imagery.[30][31] The authors noted this change in recruitment strategy was an important difference, but there was not enough data to establish a protocol to attain a representative sample of bisexual-identified men. Noting these factors, they concluded, "Bisexual-identified men with bisexual arousal patterns do indeed exist, however, and they present an interesting opportunity to illuminate the development and expression of male sexual orientation."[31] A further study found a stronger bisexual arousal pattern in bisexual-identified men, compared to heterosexual and homosexual men, but that not all such identified men exhibited such arousal patterns.[32]

is more accurate as

It was reported that Bailey's study was misinterpreted and misreported.[28] In 2011, in a new study with the same technology but different recruiting criteria and stimuli, Bailey said he found bisexual genital arousal patterns in men.[28][29] He and other researchers reported that specifically among men with a history of several romantic and sexual relationships with members of both sexes, high levels of sexual arousal were found in response to both male and female sexual imagery.[30][31] The authors noted this change in recruitment strategy was an important difference, but there was not enough data to establish a protocol to attain a representative sample of bisexual-identified men. Men in the 2011 study were recruited from internet websites catering to men looking for sex with a man and a woman at the same time. Researchers concluded, "Bisexual-identified men with bisexual arousal patterns do indeed exist, however, and they present an interesting opportunity to illuminate the development and expression of male sexual orientation."[31] A different report based on the same study indicated a stronger bisexual arousal pattern in bisexual-identified men, compared to heterosexual and homosexual men, but that not all such identified men exhibited such arousal patterns.[32] In 2012, researchers at Cornell confirmed the existence of bisexual arousal patterns in pupil dilation in response to erotic stimuli. [ref http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040256 ]. In 2013, research confirmed bisexual patterns of viewing times secretly measured as participants rated attractiveness of models wearing swimsuits. [ref Lippa, Richard, "Men and Women with Bisexual Identities Show Bisexual Patterns of Sexual Attraction to Male and Female 'Swimsuit Models", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 42 Issue 2 pp. 187-196 Feb 2013 DOI 10.1007/s10508-012-9981-z . The studies demonstrating the existence of physiological bisexual arousal were supported by the American Institute of Bisexuality. Some of the background was reported in the New York Times Magazine. [ref http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/the-scientific-quest-to-prove-bisexuality-exists.html ]

THANKS! JDMBA (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This request was marked (curtly) answered, with a suggestion we try for consensus. Please consider this very specific and in my view accurate suggestion now to be a Request For Comment in order that we try for consensus. If you view disagree, please comment or we may assume you agree. If there is some other way to try for consensus, I am listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDMBA (talk • contribs)

If you're looking to start a request for comment, use the appropriate method as detailed on that page, as the template it uses notifies other editors that you are doing so, and will help draw them to the discussion. This template is used for simple edits and the editors that watch the list of edit requests is generally a much smaller pool. Cannolis (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Cannolis, a WP:Request for comment should generally only be started after significant talk page discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that, feel free to start discussion here, but further use of the edit-requested template is inappropriate as well. Cannolis (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Physical attraction without sexual arousal

Considering that romantic attraction is included as part of the definition of sexuality even though it doesn't necessarily involve sexual arousal, do you think physical attraction should also be added? Let's say a male finds other males physically attractive, to the point where he may be more inclined to check out men than women, but is not sexually aroused by men, and he only has sex with women. Would you still count him as heterosexual?--Xagg (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I replied to a similar question you left at Talk:Sexual attraction. As for your bisexuality question: No, we should not include physical attraction as part of the definition of bisexuality; this is because physical attraction by itself does not equate to bisexuality; it does not mean the subset pansexuality either. And as for the inclusion of "romantic", you and I already discussed that: Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3#"Romantic" and "emotional". Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Both" in the lead for the WP:Lead sentence

FreeKnowledgeCreator, regarding this revert of my edit, how is "both" needed and how is the text "potentially confusing" without it? Keep in mind that I've thought of how excluding it may be a problem, and concluded that it is not a problem. More than once, the lead did fine without it before it was eventually added back. And, no, I don't think it was added back those other times because "both" is needed; I think it was added back because people have a habit of unnecessarily using the word both. That stated, I won't press the issue of re-removing it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If the lead says attraction to "both males and females", that makes it clear that there are two attractions, one specifically to males and one specifically to females. If, on the other hand, it simply says attraction "to males and females" that might imply a single attraction that applies in an undifferentiated way to both males and females, a kind of generalized sexual attraction that just happens to fall equally on both sexes. I appreciate that it's a fairly subtle distinction, but it's an important one, well worth making. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I stated above, "Keep in mind that I've thought of how excluding it may be a problem, and concluded that it is not a problem." So, yes, I thought about the aspects you argued in your "04:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)" post before you posted it, but I don't see the argument as very convincing. Common sense tells me that people will have the common sense to know that we mean bisexuality is about being sexually attracted to both sexes, without the word "both" being included; this is enhanced by the fact that bisexuality is a well-known sexuality that the vast majority of people don't have to look up to know its definition. Furthermore, the rest of the lead and article are clear on what bisexuality is, and we don't use "both" the other times that we are making the point about sexual attraction to males and females, or specifically men and women, in the article unless it's to clarify "sexes" by stating "both sexes." But just in case, we have people who don't have common sense read this article, I will not press to re-remove "both." And just to clarify (for everyone) why I excluded "both," though you did state that you understood my reasoning why when you reverted me, I excluded it because people commonly do not distinguish sex and gender and think that we are stating that there are only two genders, when, in fact, there are a lot of genders if going by third gender and genderqueer, and despite the fact that the lead is not stating that there only two by stating "both." Or they think that biological sex is not binary, despite, as I've explained in the #Definition of Bisexuality above, science not having identified a third sex. Anyway, consider this discussion done. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Label accuracy

I tried to fix the bias in the label accuracy section. We should not frame a study published in a mainstream journal by prominent sexologists as mere biphobia.

• "Critics state that this study works from the assumption that a man is only truly bisexual if he exhibits virtually equal genital arousal responses to pornography featuring only women and pornography featuring only men."

  This is not in the FAIR source. It's also a misrepresentation of the study, which states that "men with strong bisexual arousal need not have precisely the same degree of arousal to both male and female stimuli. However, on average, their arousal to both male and female stimuli should be substantial."

• "Bailey's study also recruited men via advertisements in "gay oriented magazines" and an alternative paper in Chicago, using no vetting process other than a person's choice to call themselves bi in response to an ad for a paid study."

  The editorializing in the second clause is not from the source.

• "In 2008, in a new study with the same technology but different recruiting criteria and stimuli, Bailey said he found bisexual genital arousal patterns in men."

  This is a reference to the later-published 2011 study, which we already discuss with better sources, so I removed it.

• "A further study found a stronger bisexual arousal pattern in bisexual-identified men, compared to heterosexual and homosexual men, but that not all such identified men exhibited such arousal patterns."

  This is a different publication about the same 2011 study, so I removed the sentence and left the reference.

KateWishing (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an explanation for your edits. I still have some questions. Could you please explain why you removed the following text: "Bailey's study also recruited men via advertisements in 'gay oriented magazines' and an alternative paper in Chicago, using no vetting process other than a person's choice to call themselves bi in response to an ad for a paid study." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because of the implied criticism about the lack of vetting, which is not found in the source. I've now added back a neutral description of the sampling method. KateWishing (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with KateWishing's changes. Over the years, I've edited that section mainly based on what others have added to it. Some of the content you object to above was added or changed by Tomwood0 or Udibi; see here and here. You can also see my edits tweaking theirs, or editing the section in general, here. I added to/tweaked the "In 2005, the belief that bisexuality must involve equal sexual/romantic attraction was further perpetuated by researchers Gerulf Rieger, Meredith L. Chivers, and J. Michael Bailey" wording, and I never removed it because so much of the media was reporting that and calling the study biphobic, and I was under pressure by other editors to retain that aspect. Indeed, for Bailey to state "in terms of behavior and identity, bisexual men clearly exist," and, as you worded it, "but that male bisexuality had not been shown to exist with respect to arousal or attraction" fits the definition of biphobia to many people; this is because behavior and/or identity often does not mean that a person is bisexual, which is why we have a section on the matter. So to state that the men did not experience actual sexual attraction to other men is like stating that male bisexuality does not exist in these men, or rather that male bisexuality rarely exists or likely does not exist. Later, the section evolved to give Bailey's side on the matter, so we were mot simply "[framing] a study published in a mainstream journal by prominent sexologists as mere biphobia." As for the "In 2008, in a new study with the same technology but different recruiting criteria and stimuli, Bailey said he found bisexual genital arousal patterns in men." sentence, I added that while trying to apply WP:Assume good faith to Jokestress (Andrea James), who notably has a grudge against Bailey; I also had to tweak Jokestress's original wording; see Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 2#Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited" for more on that, and what was being reported on/worked out at that time regarding this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, reading the "Bailey -- "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited" discussion again, I see that the "In 2008, in a new study with the same technology but different recruiting criteria and stimuli, Bailey said he found bisexual genital arousal patterns in men." sentence was a combination of my and Diego Moya's wording after tackling Jokestress's suggestion. Also take note that Wookiebookie in that discussion is the indefinitely blocked/banned LGBT and porn editor Benjiboi, who still continues to show back up under different usernames. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Flyer22, I may as well note that I have absolutely no affiliation with either Benjiboi or Otto4711. You are probably aware that I seldom edit porn articles, and that when I do so my edits are usually minor formatting changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I take it that you are responding to what I stated in a previous discussion; as seen there, you didn't get to reply to me on that last bit. I appreciate you replying to that matter now.

As for the Bailey content, no matter how we format that material from here on out, I note that it is common for researchers to frame bisexuality, especially male bisexuality, the way that Bailey did and/or to conclude that male bisexuality is significantly less common than female bisexuality. People can find information on Google Books on this matter, for example. Aspects of it are also noted in the Erotic plasticity article (which needs a lot of work) or at User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality (a WP:Student editor project that I WP:Userfied; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 15#User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality). Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Since RadioElectrico created the Sexual fluidity article, I noted on RadioElectrico's talk page that content from User:Flyer22/Fluidity of sexuality can be used to expand that article. If anyone watching the Bisexuality article is interested in helping out with that article, this note should prove useful. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Organization of sections

Flyer22 and I are discussing the section organization, which to me looks poor. There have been two (amicable) undos so we both feel it makes sense to bring here.

Basic structure as I see it. If there's doubt, be guided by the structure of sections in our article on homosexuality:

• What it is (definitions) - not the place to go into perceptions and discrimination issues, as that's significant enough to have sections of its own. This should just be about how it's defined (by various researchers or parties), not how it's societally seen.

• Kinsey scale - significant part of how it's defined, and clarifies the definitions

• Demographics - correct term for 'prevalence'. "How common is it by various definitions" is a good follow-up having defined it.

From here on section order is more about useful/likely to be of greater reader relevance. More readers will want to look up perceptions or media portrayals than evolutionary biological theory for example. This is common with other articles with such research, where the hard core research and theory is often toward the end of the section list. Also how it's done in homosexuality.

• Perceptions - need some sections clearly about perceptions

• Social labels - if a section on "labels" is needed (what exactly is this really about? perceptions? epithets?), put it here. Doesn't need to be called "label accuracy", any section on perceptions, labels, epithets, would be expected to discuss their accuracy too.
• Discrimination

• Bisexual erasure - significant enough in the topic to have its own subsection

• Media portrayal
• Bisexual community - worth noting and not a problem here
• International attitudes - we don't have and should. Compare US, UK, Holland, Russia and Kenya
• Among non-human animals - yes, need this
• Social theory - Putting this first may come over as primarily a topic to clinically study (and pathologize?), also most readers are likely to find the above more relevant to whatever brought them to the article. Cross reference Homosexuality, that's where it is there.

There are three subsections I'm not sure where best to place:

• Bisexuality in gay and lesbian spaces - significant enough separate from erasure. Covering perceptions, acceptance and hostility as specific to L/G communities. But should it be under a broad section of "L/G perceptions" or how placed?
• Effects of non-bisexual perceptions - We ought to have a section on this, but under which part? Note that perceptions by heterosexuals and L/G may need distinct subsections as they involve such different issues
• Mental health - We ought to have a section on this, but under which part?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I advised FT2 to bring this matter to this talk page for discussion. FT2, our Homosexuality article is not very good, or even close to good, so I don't see why you'd want to model an article after that one. My problem with this edit you made, which I reverted, is the following: I don't like the Bisexuality in human sexuality WP:Redlink; for the "main article" link, we shouldn't be linking to an article that doesn't exist, and there is no need for such an article. I'm not sure that the "Label accuracy" section should be moved out of the Definitions section since it partly concerns definitions, and I don't see that it needs to be retitled; I don't, however, mind too much if you retitle it "Perceptions and discrimination" and have its content be broader than what it is, which is what you did before I reverted you. I don't like the "History" section being so high up, and the "Research and studies" section being so low; it shouldn't be the last section. "Among other animals" should be the last section, as it's previously been. Furthermore, the "Research and studies" heading makes it seem that there are no other parts of the article that are about research and studies (even more so than the "Studies, theories and social responses" heading currently in the article does), when, in fact, there are other parts of the article that are about research and studies. We don't need the Television section split up into three subsections; it's a relatively small section. Per MOS:Paragraphs, subheadings usually are not needed for such small sections. And there is no Communities in current culture article (nor should there be), and yet you linked to it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's the section structure of homosexuality that I meant (I wasn't checking the content of the article beyond that). Redlinks - fine, delink or remove, I must have picked those up from other places. "Label accuracy" isn't okay as or where it is. "Definitions" is about what bisexuality is according to reliable sources (which may define it several ways of course). It is not about "Like people of other LGBT sexualities, bisexuals often face discrimination" or about " In addition to the discrimination associated with homophobia, bisexuals frequently contend with discrimination". That's pushing discrimination and perception issues into the definitions section, and they shouldn't be. Even if they "partly concern" definitions, then we would define the terms here (including pejorative terms if any), and then cover the actual discrimination aspect elsewhere. "Research and studies" is routinely not high in an article - not because it's not important but because articles tend to address how average readers will look at them. Looking at the article, it's specifically the social evolutionary theory part (not the rest of that section) which I think needs to be nearer the end. Among other animals - anywhere near the end is fine, so as you say is fine. TV - agree, doesn't need to be split up, it's small. But I think we do need specific sections as I've described, on discrimination, perceptions (both hetero and homosexual oriented), mental health and impact, and public service provision (covering subtopics education and healthcare: nothing there yet but there should be). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Give me one or two days to think about this topic; this will also lend a couple of days to others who might be interested in commenting before changes are made. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)‎

I noticed the back-and-forth editing going on, but I have no real opinion about the merits of the changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since no one else watching this article is interested in weighing in on this matter, or since they rather don't care about how any of the sections in it are organized, I'll go ahead and continue this discussion: I stand by my "14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)" post. I don't see how the Homosexuality article has a good outline; I was commenting on the article in its entirety when I stated "our Homosexuality article is not very good, or even close to good." The "Label accuracy" section has been okay placed where it is, and it's there under the Definitions section because people define bisexuality differently, including by asserting that a person has to be equally sexually attracted to both sexes/genders to be bisexual, or at least not strongly prefer one sex/gender over the other. But since that section is not strictly about definitions, I understand what you mean about moving it. I already stated that "I don't, however, mind too much if you retitle it 'Perceptions and discrimination' and have its content be broader than what it is, which is what you did before I reverted you." I might change that title just a little at some point, though. I would also prefer that we keep the Definitions section as the first section; you didn't move that, but I'm noting it just in case you want to move it.

I still don't like the "Research and studies" heading or that section being placed so low in the article. Again, different parts of the article are about research. Not to mention that "research," in the academic sense, usually includes studies. While "research and studies" material usually is not very high in Wikipedia articles, it also usually is not as low as you placed that content in this article. I sometimes work on medical articles; with MOS:MED#Sections, you can see where they generally place research material; it's usually in more than one section, with more specific headings in addition to some types of articles also having a "Research" section low in the article. I understand that the "Research and studies" heading you suggest has subheadings with more specific titles, but I still don't like the "Research and studies" heading. The non-human animals material should be last, as mentioned; it's also last in the Homosexuality article. As for everything else, I'm fine with that as long as it's done well and we don't unnecessarily have subheadings. Having subheadings for a little bit of material makes articles look longer than they are from the table of contents, and therefore makes the article more difficult to navigate through. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then let's try a few things and see if I understand your points - if you have objections to any, can you try to minimally reverse, or only reverse those parts you actually disagree with (not all of it). My initial concerns are, 1/ the first paragraph of "label accuracy" is all about discrimination; the rest is better titled "accuracy of definitions" which I hope works for you, 2/ International attitudes (clearly needed and doesn't exist), added to "other culture attitudes". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This, this, this and this edit show what problems I had with your latest changes. To summarize: Splitting the Label accuracy section didn't work, so I moved it back with the other content, but in the section about perceptions and discrimination, similar to what you did before. Splitting the Label accuracy section also caused redundancy. More redundancy came when you merged content from the Biphobia and Bisexual erasure articles into this article. You added a lot of content from those articles, and didn't exercise proper WP:Summary style. Those articles are not huge; all we need is a little content summarizing the idea of those articles. And biphobia and bisexual erasure, which are intricately linked and are aspects of bisexual discrimination and ignorance toward bisexual people, don't need their own subsections. All they need are two to four paragraphs in the section about perceptions and discrimination, and that's what I did. Furthermore, perceptions and discrimination are aspects of the bisexual community, so that is why I placed that content under the Community heading as a subsection. You added too many subheadings again, including empty ones; I know that some editors are okay with empty subsections, but I'm not. And going back to the topic of transferring content from other articles, I feel that we need to be careful; by that, I mean careful that we are not adding too much from them (this goes back to what I stated about WP:Summary style), that we are not adding redundancy, and that we are not adding poor sources from those articles. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, per MOS:Head, there is no need to include "bisexual" in the heading for cases such as "Bisexual community." The heading "Community" is all that is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bisexuality

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bisexuality's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rollingstone.com":

• From Queen (band): "Queen, first non-blues based heavy metal band". Rolling Stone, Dec 1973.
• From Freddie Mercury: "RollingStone.com – 100 Greatest Singers of All Time". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 27 September 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bisexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125201624/http://richarddawkins.net:80/articles/2850 to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2850
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427005112/http://www.keithboykin.com:80/arch/001311.html to http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/001311.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bisexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bibrain.org/ControversyOverBaileyV2.0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070129080614/http://www.biflag.com:80/Activism.asp to http://www.biflag.com/Activism.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100801045250/http://www.playboy.com:80/articles/david-bowie-interview/index.html?page=2 to http://www.playboy.com/articles/david-bowie-interview/index.html?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080510103103/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=366 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=366
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414165618/http://www.atvnewsnetwork.co.uk/today/index.php/atv-today/3540-more-torchwood-details-revealed to http://www.atvnewsnetwork.co.uk/today/index.php/atv-today/3540-more-torchwood-details-revealed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bisexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120193337/http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/james-marsters-interview/ to http://www.radiotimes.com/content/features/james-marsters-interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuality and Pansexuality

It says that bisexuality is termed as pansexuality when the two are completely different. Bisexuality is when you have an attraction to two genders (ex. Male and female) while pansexuality is the attraction to all genders including but not limited to male, female, transgender, agender, gender fluid, demiboy, Demi girl etc. LostSongTrash (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LostSongTrash. Read the sources, and this section of the Pansexuality article, for why we note that pansexuality is sometimes considered a broader aspect of bisexuality. Also see the #Definition of Bisexuality discussion above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles to Enhance Content

I found several articles that could work well as food for thought. Feel free to read these and add to any section you see fit!

-Sddone01 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Addition to 6.4 Television

I am considering adding this. Any feedback?

In the Netflix original series Orange is the New Black the main character, Piper Chapman, played by actress Taylor Schilling, is a bisexual female inmate who is shown having relationships with both men and women. In season one, before entering the prison, Piper is engaged to male fiance, Larry Bloom, played by actor Jason Biggs. Then, upon entering the prison, she reconnects with former lover (and fellow inmate), Alex Vause, played by Laura Prepon. Another character who is portrayed as bisexual in the show is an inmate named Lorna Morello, played by actress Yael Stone. She has an intimate relationship with fellow inmate Nicky Nichols, played by Natasha Lyonne, while still yearning for her male “fiance”, Christopher MacLaren, played by Stephen O'Reilly.

- Sddone01 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bisexuality. 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/20121015093725/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/bisex_film.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/bisex_film.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bisexuality. 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/20100726194522/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413152614/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2009/04/ever_meet_a_rea.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2009/04/ever_meet_a_rea.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140216071740/http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/bisexuality to http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/bisexuality
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204072030/http://www.lambda.org/symbols.htm to http://www.lambda.org/symbols.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922114218/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821003341/http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/iwa/findingaids/html/CommonlIves.html to http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/iwa/findingaids/html/CommonlIves.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2001320029-2006430699%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004073922/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEXOR4.HTM to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEXOR4.HTM

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bisexuality. 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/20090103200307/http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html to http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210122058/http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/opinion_bisexual_cowboys_love to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/opinion_bisexual_cowboys_love
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230212703/http://www.mensstudies.com/content/120392/?p=5836e79535e54e3bb24fa8a3d757b32d&pi=2 to http://www.mensstudies.com/content/120392/?p=5836e79535e54e3bb24fa8a3d757b32d&pi=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101000138/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/bisdia.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/bisdia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521085828/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/ to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Brain structure and chromosomes / extreme homophobia and biphobia in the content of this article

This section contains highly biphobic content. The cited research is extremely biased and outdated.

"Some evidence supports the concept of biological precursors of bisexual orientation in genetic males. According to Money (1988), genetic males with an extra Y chromosome are more likely to be bisexual, paraphilic and impulsive."

This sentence obviously suggests that bisexuals are more prone to be "parapphilic" and "impulsive". And this statement is based on a "study" in 1988! This level of offensiveness is not acceptable, specially on such a sensitive topic.

right before this statement there is another reference to another study in 1999 which had ONE bisexual subject. And the result apparently says that there are obvious genetic difference between gay men and straight men.

There are other very problematic parts in this article, like the sex drive section. It seems to me that all the biphobic myths about the bisexuals are bullet pointed in this read.

Gigili lafcadio (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)gigili_lafcadio

The section is a subsection of the "Studies, theories and social responses" section. This means that the section will include theories as well, even old ones. But perhaps we can adequately put the theories in a separate section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be ok if the whole section was not consist of outdated theories and it would be completed by new ones. Even in the case that some particular theory is still a viable theory but there are controversies about it, or there are alternative theories which discard it, it would be a biased read if they are not included. And I have to emphasize that this is not the case here. A study with "18 homosexual men, 1 bisexual man, 16 presumably heterosexual men", which claims correlations between genetic markers is NOT a scientifically valid study. All the theories mentioned in the whole section are nearly 2 decades old. So this section needs substantial expansion. Gigili lafcadio (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)gigili_lafcadio