Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

Bisexuality is the sexual attraction to 2 genders not specifically male and female. IsabellaScar (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also read the second part of the lede sentence Cannolis (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity is called pansexuality, and although the two may get confused, they are different - pansexuality is NOT the same as bisexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CB05:4600:4CEA:B39D:A6A9:8674 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting individual research findings

Wiki policy is not to include findings from individual studies. Therefore, there are quite a number of problems on this page that violate this policy. 1. The Chivers study should be deleted 2. Robin Ochs' definition of bisexuality should be deleted. Swancology (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Swancology, that is not a policy. I believe you are referring to WP:Primary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but they should be used carefully and sparingly. A number of studies in this article can be supported by WP:Secondary and/or WP:Tertiary sources. So it is easy to retain the material if it should be retained. See WP:Preserve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the study material should be trimmed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue comes with understanding the limits of "original research." I would posit that in the case of the two issues I raised- directly quoting an activist, who is not a scientist or researcher, violates the neutrality clause. Perhaps what could be said is that even the definition of bisexuality is in conflict. One could write quite a bit about that including what is and what is not included under the Bisexual Umbrella. Secondly, I think that the Chivers study, has since been rebuked and, as you probably know, with the aid of the AIB, the study was rerun and the results reversed. I think this study is seen in the scientific community as flawed and thus should not be weighted here as one of the only experimental studies cited. Further, one could expand the discussion to discuss that one inherent bias is that the study assumed that bisexuality is solely about sexual attraction. As Weinberg et al. found, it is not uncommon for bisexual individuals to have sexual attraction to one sex and emotional attraction to the other. So Flyer22 Reborn what do you suggest in the case of these two items? Swancology (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Well, yes, the definition of bisexuality can vary. That has been discussed thoroughly on this talk page, and it's why, per WP:Consensus, the lead gives the "males and females" definition in addition to the "any sex or gender identity" (or "regardless of gender") definition. It's also why the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section notes that "some sources state that bisexuality encompasses romantic or sexual attraction to all gender identities or that it is romantic or sexual attraction to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, equating it to or rendering it interchangeable with pansexuality." I don't care if the Robyn Ochs definition in the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section stays or goes. But per WP:In-text attribution and WP:About self, it's directly noted as her definition, not some widely used definition (well, not widely used except for the "more than one sex and/or gender" aspect). As for the Chivers study, what material are you referring to? I am all for trimming excessive detail (especially if it lends WP:Undue weight) and adding counterarguments as long as its reliably sourced and due weight. As for WP:Original research, that policy is about "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It's not simply about something being unsourced. Something can be unsourced and still not be a WP:Original research violation. That policy also concerns WP:Synthesis. On a side note: Remember to sign your user name on article or project talk pages, using for tildes. I signed your latest post for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by "the Chivers study," you mean what is commonly known as the 2005 Bailey study. The one that is in the "Perceptions and discrimination" section. Considering the notability of that study, it should be covered in this article. And, as you see, counterarguments are presented along with that material. I think it is covered in the right section of the article (although a case for it being covered in the "Studies, theories and social responses" section with criticism can be validly made). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes to the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section

Brainy J, regarding this revert of your edit by FreeKnowledgeCreator, I felt I should go ahead and address this before you attempt to alter the lead's definition or attempt to change the section in question again. Let's discuss first. The lead's definition has been discussed times before. See Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 4#Definition of Bisexuality. We begin with what is the most common definition even today and is the definition given by authoritative scientific organizations such as the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association. The Bisexual Index and BiPhoria are not authoritative scientific organizations. They are not even scientific organizations. The Bisexual Resource Center is a good bisexual resource, but it is an educational and advocacy organization. The Human Rights Campaign is a good resource, but it is an advocacy group. In the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section, you put these latter sources and Robyn Ochs in the same paragraph that mentions "both males and females" and the American Psychological Association, and you made it seem like how the latter sources define bisexuality is the most common definition for bisexuality. From what I know of the literature, it's not (at least as far as the scientific/scholarly literature goes), although there has been a push in the bisexual community to define bisexuality that way more than in the standard "males and females" or "men and women" way. That bisexuality is still so commonly seen in the binary way is why terms such as pansexuality and polysexuality now exist. Also, in the #Deleting individual research findings section above, we see one editor requesting that we delete the Robyn Ochs definition/statement.

As has been discussed before, there is more than one definition of bisexuality. There is the binary way, which is supported by scientific organizations among many other sources. And there is the non-binary way, which has it equated with pansexuality often enough. Like 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." 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 notes that "bisexuality itself is so hard to define." This, and past debates about how to define bisexuality in the lead, is why we give due weight to the more common binary definition of bisexuality and then immediately note the non-binary aspect in the same sentence. The non-binary definition may be defined as "regardless of gender," "irrespective of gender," "more than one gender," "any gender," or as "all genders." We begin the lead sentence by stating "is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females," and then continue with "or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity; this latter aspect is sometimes alternatively termed pansexuality." You added on to the "more than one gender" definition in the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section. I'd be fine with the section simply making it clear that bisexuality may also be defined in the "more than one gender" way, without including the Robyn Ochs statement, since she's not the only one who uses the "more than one gender" definition and her statement can be considered undue weight. But this shouldn't be in the first paragraph in that section. And it should come before or after the pansexuality paragraph, considering what that paragraph relays.

All that stated, the "more the one gender" definition of bisexuality is a given when one considers that bisexuality is commonly defined as sexual attraction to both men and women, which automatically renders it as "more than one gender." So we haven't used the "more than one gender" aspect for the lead. We've wanted to be clear about how broad the term can extend, and the "people of any sex or gender identity" aspect takes care of that. Plus, "more than one gender" is sometimes seen as the same thing as polysexuality (sexual attraction to multiple genders), which is another subset of bisexuality. But, as I've suggested before, we could change the lead to the following: "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." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

All right, I was simply trying to make a paragraph displaying that a variety of sources use different definitions besides "both male and female". I don't know why "scientific organizations" are valued more highly as sources for this than sexuality advocacy organizations. Bisexuality is not a scientific concept like gravity or magnetism. It's a sexuality term, so I thought sexuality-focused sources would be valuable. I would be okay with your suggested change to the lead sentence. -- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Science is about more than just "hard" sciences, and Wikipedia favors scientific sources over advocacy groups for the sake of NPOV. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how bisexual organizations are somehow not reliable neutral sources for what bisexuality is, but okay. Is the Journal of Bisexuality a scientific enough source? From Under the Bisexual Umbrella: Diversity of Identity and Experience (open-access): Bisexuality as a single identity encompasses so many different meanings and attractions and behaviors for people who explicitly identify as bisexual. The general identity definition most commonly used, attraction to more than one gender, then leaves room for the multitudinous expressions of that identity.-- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Brainy J, sexual orientation is a scientific topic. And by extension, so is bisexuality. The biology and sexual orientation research looks into why people have the sexual orientation they have. As I've stated before, that research is usually about what causes homosexuality, but bisexuality is an aspect of homosexuality since homosexuality, in addition to covering homosexual sexual orientation, covers same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual behavior in general. Although there are alternative labels for bisexuality, or terms considered alternative labels for bisexuality (such as pansexuality), bisexuality is not just a term/sexual identity/category. Yes, sexual orientation is also a social topic, but that doesn't negate it being subject to scientific research. As for sourcing, it's about what WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:MEDRS and WP:Due weight state. Context matters. What academic sources state on the topic of sexual orientation (bisexuality or otherwise) are more reliable than what advocacy groups state on it, especially seeing as some of them might be WP:Fringe. I mention WP:MEDRS because, as you can see, organizations such as the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association cover sexual orientation. Some aspects of sexual orientation are subject to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. As for the Journal of Bisexuality, it is a decent academic journal, but the "Under the Bisexual Umbrella: Diversity of Identity and Experience" source you pointed to is just one source and there are obviously many sources that state differently on the bisexual definition; this ranges from how it's defined, people defining it differently, and issues with trying to define it. I can list a number of those here. Again, I don't mind the lead or section in question mentioning "more than one gender" as a definition of bisexuality, but calling it the "most common definition of bisexuality" is dubious (in terms of the scientific literature anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Thank you to update UNICODE symbol: ⚤ U+26A4 (bi

File:GENDER UNICODE.png

sexuality) ELWILDCAT (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated definitions

It appears that there may have been earlier debate with regards to binary language in the definitions of bisexuality. Both GLAAD and APA were identified as authorities previously, and I have updated the definitions according to those authorities as they currently define bisexuality. Lastchapter (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

And you were reverted by an editor per those earlier debates. It's not a matter of updating the definitions since the binary definition is still prevalent in the sexual orientation literature and is not outdated. It's a matter of presenting both the binary aspect of the definition and the non-binary aspect of the definition per WP:Due weight. You removed "both males and females" out of the lead even though the APA source you added even states "more than one sex or gender." It clearly goes by sex in addition to gender. And you added "toward people of the same gender as well as another gender" without changing the sources in the lead. Again, I've suggested before, we could change the lead to the following: "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 really don't have anything to state on this matter that I haven't already stated. This piece you added was restored by the editor, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The GLAAD Reference Guide is, by definition, not a minority viewpoint. It appears that I may have made a mistake in the previous edit when I attempted to update the source- this is GLAAD's current standard definition: "A person who has the capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional attractions to those of the same gender or to those of another gender." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastchapter (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Lastchapter, again, this is a matter of WP:Due weight. We are not going to exclude the binary definition when it is still prominent to this day and is what the scientific sexual orientation literature is mostly based on. Social science is an aspect, but the sexual orientation literature is more so focused on biology. The fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation literature, for example, is not about what the person's gender identity might be or sexual attraction to a person's gender identity. It's about the person sex's and sexual attraction to a person's sex/physical appearance. So is the biology of sexual orientation literature in general. Biology can't identify a non-binary gender (in the strict sense of "gender" referring to social aspects at least). We include the gender aspect in the leads of the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles because, like I stated in the WP:Hidden note seen here (although you can see an editor recently objecting to "gender" there) at the Homosexuality article, "sex" and "gender" are not always the same thing; for example, "sex" may refer to "biological sex" (being male or female, or, yes, one of the variations known as intersex), while "gender" may refer to a person's gender identity of being a man or a woman for those pieces. Even back then (when I added that hidden note years ago), I was taking gender and gender identity into account because they are also aspects of sexual orientation and are what some sources were also considering. And these days, more and more sources are taking them into account with regard to non-binary people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I like your (Flyer's) proposed rewording, except with a semicolon instead of a space (i.e. one sentence instead of two). It adds the also-common definition as "more than one sex/gender". And it somewhat helps address the awkwardness of "is 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" which has the dual problems of being unnecessarily repetitive (bad especially for a lead sentence) and, by being only partially repetitive, implying that engaging in "sexual behavior" with men and women would make a person bisexual but that if they started also engaging in such behavior with e.g. intersex non-binary people as well, they could no longer be bisexual. -sche (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed the lead to my proposed wording, but with the semi-colon instead of the comma for the lead sentence. I don't see why the semi-colon is important, though. And I don't see how "toward both males and females, or romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" is unnecessarily repetitive, since the first part is strict and the latter part is broader. I also don't understand your "implying that engaging in 'sexual behavior' with men and women" argument either. But I was never big on the flow of that first paragraph. And to repeat, we can change "people of any sex or gender identity" to "regardless of sex or gender identity." Also, "regardless of sex or gender identity" aligns with the wording we use for the lead of the Pansexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean you want the semi-colon here? Looks better to me with the period there instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of recent addition

I removed the following, recent addition: "Modern sex researchers believe that Kinsey overestimated the prevalence of same-sex behavior." The term "modern sex researchers" has no meaning without explanation, especially because of the broadness of the term "modern". See Modern history and modernity. I wasn't quite correct in stating that the term "modern" refers to anything since the 18th century, but the term does have a very broad application; "modern history" can be understood to begin with the early 16th century. I suggest to the user who added the content that it be rewritten before being submitted again. If all "modern sex researchers" means is J. Michael Bailey and researchers who agree with him, then please just add something to that effect. "Modern sex researchers" as a term for Bailey and people who agree with him is unacceptable promotional language, I think. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the term 'modern' and can instead say 'more recent' or something like that.

Regarding Kinsey, the Bailey et al. paper is far from alone. See for example Lehmiller 2017 on pages 35 and 147, and Balthazart 2012 on p. 9. Lehmiller and other sources usually cite Kinsey with the 37% figure, so where the current source gets 46% from will need further investigation and should possibly be replaced for being misleading. Any claim that Kinsey's estimates are still thought accurate would need a cite. Also, the sentence about Kinsey's dislike of the word bisexual seems tangential and undue.

It is not clear what you mean by 'Bailey and those who agree with him.' The Bailey et al paper is just the kind of secondary source preferred by WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. It had six authors, one of which was a humanities scholar, and another one was Lisa Diamond, who would certainly not have agreed to lowball the prevalence of bisexuality. Ritch Savin-Williams critiqued a few things in that paper, but did not challenge most of it. If there exist any scientific researchers who disagree with Bailey et al's conclusions, I have yet to hear of them. Balthazart (linked above) and LeVay (linked below) agree with them as well.

The last paragraph stating "there is large variation in the prevalence of bisexuality between different cultures" does not represent scientific opinion as a whole. I looked at that paper; while it does technically say that it varies between cultures from very little to universal, it also concluded, "Nevertheless, there seem to be some commonalities in the data. Exclusive or predominant heterosexuality is most common, followed by predominant or exclusive homosexuality; bisexuality is least common." Researchers have criticized using the Sambia to comment on sexual orientation, since their homosexual behavior takes place under extreme coercion. See our article on Sambia Sexual Culture and the paragraphs starting with Giles and McConaghy (I have personally read the sources and can vouch for the accuracy of our material).

That paragraph, along with Kinsey's alleged 46%, is extremely misleading in implying that bisexual attractions are very common and/or that other cultures have high rates of bisexual orientation. The Bailey et al review states, "We expect that in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex." LeVay states on p. 14 that "heterosexuality is far and away the most common orientation among both men and women." The context shows he says this in contrast with homosexuality and bisexuality. He is well aware of other cultures and discusses them on pages 19-26 and 35. Balthazart makes the same point about sexual orientation in general, though being less specific about bisexuality, on pages 13-14. Note too the overwhelming similarity between the prevalence graphs in Bailey et al, in LeVay p. 14, and Balthazart p. 10, all being based on different sources. Regarding men, the rate of male same-sex behavior is at most 20% in some cultures (aside from irrelevant outliers like the Sambia). The World Health Organization estimates between 3 and 16%.

I think the above makes clear that scientists and researchers do not believe that sexual orientation varies much between cultures, but that rates of acting on attractions do. A comparison of that with the current material reveals it to be misleading and inadvertantly cherry-picked. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The material on Kinsey reads,

' Kinsey himself disliked the use of the term bisexual to describe individuals who engage in sexual activity with both males and females, preferring to use bisexual in its original, biological sense as hermaphroditic, stating, "Until it is demonstrated [that] taste in a sexual relation is dependent upon the individual containing within his anatomy both male and female structures, or male and female physiological capacities, it is unfortunate to call such individuals bisexual." '

It is obviously not "tangential" because it directly concerns the subject of the article. Nor is it undue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The expression "Bailey and those who agree with him" is not ambiguous in meaning. It refers to J. Michael Bailey and those who share his views. Thus I do not understand what you mean by saying that it is "not clear". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You commented that, "where the current source gets 46% from will need further investigation and should possibly be replaced for being misleading". The source is clearly indicated. It is this archived web page from the Kinsey Institute website, which states, "Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives." That in turn is cited to Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, page 656 (correctly, since the book does state what the web page states it states). In my view it would be better to simply cite Sexual Behavior in the Human Male directly, rather than cite a defunct web page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed it as explained in the edit summary. For the primacy of 37%, see here and here as examples. On top of that, there have been a multitude of studies done since Kinsey's day on rates of same-sex behavior and attraction, and they universally arrive at far lower figures than Kinsey. I explained this above. Frankly, an argument could be made for removing him entirely, for being out of date, misleading, and putting undue weight on figures now rejected. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Really. So you think that the article should contain no information about any views about bisexuality except those that are currently fashionable? You don't believe that it should contain information about what an extremely influential past writer thought, so that readers can have some understanding of the history of thinking about bisexuality? What an utterly preposterous thing to suggest. Perhaps you should try respecting the intelligence of readers of the article, instead of worrying that they will wind up believing something that you consider wrong, due to the article simply mentioning some view you disagree with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In a section titled "Demographics and Prevalence", no, wrong historical views are not appropriate. Kinsey is already mentioned under "Kinsey scale". Given your comments about "Bailey and people who agree with him" and "currently fashionable", I get the impression of disliking what current sexual science has found. "Currently fashionable" is also a tacit admission that Kinsey is indeed out of date. I don't see any possible way that "current fashion" in science could change back to thinking that anyone could be bisexual under the right circumstances. I could just as easily say, 'perhaps you should try not misleading our readers?' It is not about what I think, but what RS think, and I cited 6 of them above, which you totally ignored. You don't want our readers to come away from this with the idea that homosexuality and bisexuality are learned and hence changeable and preventable, do you? -Crossroads- (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The views in question are mentioned as having been expressed in a book published in 1948. Maybe you think that readers of the article are so stupid that they will automatically assume that something that someone concluded in 1948 must still be the current thinking. I on the other hand would prefer to assume that readers are not that stupid and won't automatically assume that. You might want to consider that you aren't going to change my mind by making comments that are rude, presumptuous, and make totally false assumptions about what I believe. Your comment "You don't want our readers to come away from this with the idea that homosexuality and bisexuality are learned and hence changeable and preventable, do you?" is inflammatory rubbish that raises an irrelevant issue. None of the material concerns issues such as whether "homosexuality and bisexuality are learned". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The rude and presumptuous comments started here. We are not here to test our readers' intelligence with misleading information (they don't know why the survey results are skewed, and being from 1948 has nothing to do with it). Don't forget you also reverted my change to the paragraph arguing for high cross-cultural variation. And if it does vary across time and place, then it is changeable/learned. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that this relevant information should be removed because of your assertions that it is misleading. You are free to argue that it is misleading if you like, but you have not made a convincing case, just assertions. As for your other comments, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. As I said, none of the material concerns issues such as whether homosexuality and bisexuality are learned. Your comment "if it does vary across time and place, then it is changeable/learned" is a piece of nonsense (just to start with, "learned" and "changeable" don't mean the same thing, and latter doesn't in any sense follow from the former). Please don't confuse discussion by raising irrelevant issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, perhaps, as a compromise, we should reformat the History section so that it includes 1940s content and similar older research? Or create another section for material that is older, but doesn't concern text about the ancient aspects currently seen in the History section? Maybe a subsection called "Older research"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to the material being placed in a different section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have taken Flyer's suggestion (thank you) and moved it to History. I made some other adjustments, some of which are so it fits in there. Also, I have added some info to the demographics section. Looking back over the conversation, I can see that I played a role in not maintaining a high standard of civility, and I do apologize for that. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

the problems of underlying ambiguity

After a few reads, I have the impression that this article is perpetuating intellectual dishonesty, if not gross ineptitude. Here are some points central to the page, and a few ways they obviously cannot coexist.

There are clearly individuals who do not fit into the hetero-or-homo dilemma, but as well refuse being forced neatly into the official third pigeonhole —

1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3 percent homosexual, and 3.9 percent as "something else".

Among these Elsers are those who favor other tags (such as pansexual) by which they clearly intend to set themselves apart as "not bisexual." Note that in the above example the self-identified Elsers establish that they outnumbered self-identified bisexuals by more than 2:1.

Then the WP article toddles onward with

Sometimes the phrase "bisexual umbrella" is used to describe any nonmonosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions.

And without further reference to any umbrella, that's how the term bisexual is used throughout the article, even though the Elsers have been presented as outnumbering the (for lack of a better term) Classic bisexuals. (The "action and challenging" part really needs to be stricken, as without direct attribution such as in a quotation it's editorializing. I'll get to it.)

In addition to inflating (perhaps greatly) the number of individuals who can be estimated to belong in the bisexual slot, and denying individuals the right to choose their own categorization, the term is a magnet for post hoc conjecture: Nobody is allowed to identify as gay or lesbian or heterosexual if it's been established or even conjectured they they have had even the least little attraction, at any time in their lives, both toward a female and toward a male.

Someone can be happily het all their lives, then find The Right One and self-identify as queer; conversely, The Right One might result in a switch from gay to het. (Such are the conundrums of Monogamism and binary sexuality, apparently.) But random busybody can pop up and declare the individual is really bi no matter what the target happens to state (or believe) about themselves, and therefore they can merrily be included (perhaps against their will) in The Great Bisexual Community.

This seems akin to using homosexual to encompass everyone who has not always and forever been "100% heterosexual" (by whatever random standard). It's certainly NOT W'pedia's place to inflate the stats, no matter how well-intentioned the ballot-stuffing.

FOR STARTERS: Seeing as the article is entitled Bisexuality, and the article Pansexuality has a well-established existence, then the extensive crowing in Bisexuality about pansexuality as if it's "pretty much the same thing as bisexuality" ought to be severely reduced. Similar cases can readily made as well for Queer etc.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to "the Elsers," but pansexuality in relation to bisexuality has WP:Due weight (just a sentence in the lead, and just a small paragraph in the "Sexual orientation, identity, and behavior" section) in the article. When reliable sources say that they are "pretty much the same thing," especially when going by the broader definition of bisexuality (which should be in the lead), then we report on that with due weight. We can see that the Pansexuality article is currently mostly about equating and distinguishing pansexuality with/from bisexuality, and that's because sources on pansexuality are so often concerned with that.

As for the word "sometimes," I think you should consider all of what WP:Weasel words states. And what Template:Who states as well. We are not going to stop using the word "sometimes" on Wikipedia, especially when the source uses that same exact wording. What are you expecting "sometimes" to be replaced with? "50% of the time"? And as for "the phrase 'bisexual umbrella' is used to describe any nonmonosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions." It is sourced. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, like I've told you times before. If the wording does not align with what the source states, then we can fix that. If you have better wording that aligns with what the source states, we can consider using that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The main problem at hand: If pansexuality is indeed "the same as bisexuality," then it does not need its own article. If it's NOT "the same" then the free use of the term in this article needs to be drastically reduced.

Choose either, or state a third path. Lacking that, and in consideration of the other article, I am justified in drastically curtailing use of "pansexual" as a synonym here.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are continuing your "let me go from article to article and complain about it based on my personal opinions and a misuse of guidelines and policies" approach. You are continuing with your "do what I say" and "my way or the highway" attitude. Okay, I will address that on your talk page soon.

The main problem at hand is that you clearly don't understand WP:Notability, or that more than one definition of a term should be covered in an article when more than one definition exists (as long as the definition is not undue), and that we employ WP:Summary style. I shouldn't have to state this, but sources may say that a term means the same thing to some and something different to others. We are allowed to cover that, regardless of whatever contradiction a reader or editor believes it to be. A number of topics on Wikipedia have suptopics. Pansexuality is defined by various reliable sources as a subset of bisexuality. Pansexuality has received enough attention in reliable sources to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Because bisexuality is defined both in a binary way and in a non-binary way, that aspects belongs in the lead of this article and lower in this article. It just so happens that the non-binary way it is defined (with the exception of "more than one gender") equates to pansexuality. Reliable sources are clear about that. Therefore, it is due to mention pansexality by name in the lead and cover it somewhat lower in the article. Extensive detail on pansexuality is supposed to be covered in its own Wikipedia article, but we employ WP:Summary style by also mentioning it in this article. You are not justified in the least in drastically curtailing use of pansexual as a synonym here.

And here, we can see that you removed sourced material, stating, "Removed unsupported studies -- do not reinstate without direct citations." You were reverted by Crossroads1, who tweaked the matter in the process. Do not claim that something is unsourced unless you know it's unsourced. If you are expecting a paragraph to source every sentence using the same citation, then you should review WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn makes an important point here. Also, I checked the article and I don't see any instances of the word pansexual that should be removed (although it's debatable if, nearing 2020, spending as long as we do talking about the long finished TV show Torchwood is due). -Crossroads- (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hatted unconstructive direction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks and threats of leading some campaign of Divine Retribution against me (e.g., So you are continuing your "let me go from article to article and complain about it based on my personal opinions and a misuse of guidelines and policies" approach. You are continuing with your "do what I say" and "my way or the highway" attitude. Okay, I will address that on your talk page soon.). A good beginning might be in not taking my critiques of an article as some sort of attack on you (or anyone) personally. I'm certain you could cite some W'pedia policy to the effect that articles are not in any way the property of any of the editors. Yes, I am usually terse in my complaints about slipshod editing and the widespread belief that presenting a viewpoint is much more important than properly building an encyclopedic article, two problems that appear frequently. Maybe there's an official policy against that arm-waving as well. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Given a piece in your first paragraph here at Talk:Non-heterosexual, where you state, "I fetched up here hoping to find a concise-and-clear differentiation of bisexuality and pansexuality, something woefully lacking in the respective articles (and seen as entirely unimportant by those editors who guard them jealously)", and your comments on other talk pages, I'm at a loss for how you can state, "Please stop with the personal attacks and threats" and "a good beginning might be in not taking my critiques of an article as some sort of attack on you (or anyone) personally." You have clearly attacked. I stand by all of what I stated above. This isn't about you being "terse." It's about you misusing talk pages and not at all understanding what properly building an encyclopedic article means. Keep up such behavior, and I will take you to ANI...again. And if you think you won't be warned and/or sanctioned, you should think again. You were already warned twice before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

another reason that I am certain there are HUGE holes in this article

I mean, c'mon, I've been researching this since the '80s…

No mention what-so-ever of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.

F'gossakes, what's the title of the freakin' book? Could we possibly be more basic? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Klein grid is linked in the Bisexuality infobox, and his book is mentioned in the article as well. We don't need every sexual orientation article to fill up with cruft about everyone's favorite method of measuring sexuality. Personally, I'm partial to the 5 point modified Kinsey scale. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Klein grid dates back to 1978 (if not earlier). It was created specifically to address the huge range of "bisexualities" that do not fit at all neatly onto the one-dimensional Kinsey scale, something which the present article appears to take as absolute reality. Merely tossing it out as a See Also or equivalent is insufficient.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

RS mainly use Kinsey-esque scales. The Klein Grid is obscure by comparison. It doesn't matter that you are a fan. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Input

What are the modern connections, how is bisexuality changing the world, and how is the world changing its views about bisexuality? GVR117 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Grace Randolph

"Yestergay" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yestergay. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 22:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition of bisexuality

Is the introduction really accurate when using only the word "sex" and male as sdefinition of bisexuality? Of course the notion has evolved and there many perspectives, but I think we should reflect more on this. First of all, a definitiion of bisexuality should include the word "gender". One definition that is used is “bisexual includes all people with the capacity to be sexually and/or romantically attracted romantically and/or sexually to more than one sex or gender", or to gender similar to one own's and different. Sources :

• historical section included in this one : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299710903316596
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299716.2017.1297145
• https://muse.jhu.edu/article/575374/summary
• https://medium.com/lgbtq-american-history-for-the-people/modern-bisexuality-monosexism-and-identity-policing-65d7b72b9820

Regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 5#Updated definitions. There is a binary definition and non-binary definitions (which consists of different wordings). The lead states "both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender." So "gender" is there. And "gender identity" is mentioned in the second sentence when speaking of the even broader "romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity" definition. All of the bisexuality definition aspects are covered in the first paragraph. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize, not go into depth about the matter. We aren't going to include every wording there is in the lead, or lower in the article. And per WP:Due, we aren't going to prioritize the non-binary aspect over the binary aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Change "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." to "Bisexuality is the emotional attraction, romantic attraction and/or, sexual attraction to more than one gender identity. "

Change "Some sources state that bisexuality encompasses romantic or sexual attraction to all gender identities or that it is romantic or sexual attraction to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, equating it to or rendering it interchangeable with pansexuality. The concept of pansexuality deliberately rejects the gender binary, the 'notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations', as pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women. Sometimes the phrase 'bisexual umbrella' is used to describe any nonmonosexual behaviors, attractions, and identities, usually for purposes of collective action and challenging monosexist cultural assumptions." to "Sources state that bisexuality encompasses romantic or sexual attraction to all gender identities or that it is romantic or sexual attraction to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender. In 1987, bisexual and feminist writer Lani Ka'ahumanu stated, "I am bisexual because I am drawn to people regardless of gender." Ka'ahumanu's statement has been supported by other bisexuals throughout later years.

Change "The bisexual community (also known as the bisexual/pansexual, bi/pan/fluid, or non-monosexual community) includes members of the LGBT community who identify as bisexual, pansexual or fluid." to "The bisexual community includes members of the LGBT community who identify as bisexual, pansexual or fluid."

Remove "In the BBC TV science fiction show Torchwood, several of the main characters appear to have fluid sexuality. Most prominent among these is Captain Jack Harkness, a pansexual who is the lead character and an otherwise conventional science fiction action hero. Within the logic of the show, where characters can also interact with alien species, producers sometimes use the term "omnisexual" to describe him. Jack's ex, Captain John Hart is also bisexual. Of his female exes, significantly at least one ex-wife and at least one woman with whom he has had a child have been indicated. Some critics draw the conclusion that the series more often shows Jack with men than women. Creator Russell T Davies says one of pitfalls of writing a bisexual character is you "fall into the trap" of "only having them sleep with men." He describes of the show's fourth series, "You'll see the full range of his appetites, in a really properly done way." The preoccupation with bisexuality has been seen by critics as complementary to other aspects of the show's themes. For heterosexual character Gwen Cooper, for whom Jack harbors romantic feelings, the new experiences she confronts at Torchwood, in the form of "affairs and homosexuality and the threat of death", connote not only the Other but a "missing side" to the Self. Under the influence of an alien pheromone, Gwen kisses a woman in Episode 2 of the series. In Episode 1, heterosexual Owen Harper kisses a man to escape a fight when he is about to take the man's girlfriend. Quiet Toshiko Sato is in love with Owen, but has also had brief romantic relationships with a female alien and a male human." Qwinlynk (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm declining this request because it's not clear why you want to do this. Could you provide a reason for this change, and preferably with reliable sources? (Eg: blogs usually aren't seen as reliable sources). If you need help finding sources, please visit the reference desk. @Qwinlynk. Seagull123 Φ 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of changes packed into this edit request, and most of it is regarding sourced material. We follow WP:Due weight regarding definitions. The Torchwood stuff could be trimmed down however, IMO. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Outdated references

The article cites the 8th Edition of GLAAD's Media Reference Guide from 2011 linkarchive.

The current version is the 10th edition, published in 2016 linkarchive.

Shouldn't the article use the current version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.66.16 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the old GLAAD source. A replacement would not work because the old GLAAD source was used for the binary definition of bisexuality while the new GLAAD source is broader in scope. And, clearly, there is a binary and non-binary definition of bisexuality. This talk page has been over that a number of times, and it's why the article covers both aspects. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the new GLAAD source gives the non-binary definition, why not use it as a citation for that? 2602:306:36E4:2100:BD52:D387:3E02:D74B (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The page about reliable sources states that age matters. The current citation from the American Psychological Association is from 2011 and is about sexual orientation in general. However, user:Qwinlynk below showed the the APA published a page specifically about bisexuality in November 2017. It seems clear that the current citation has been superseded and this page reflects the APA's current understanding of bisexuality. This article should cite the latter and not the former. 2600:1700:6E70:64C0:A187:482F:64B3:C35A (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I see that the article currently cites both. I still request the old citation be removed as the new one supersedes it. 2600:1700:6E70:64C0:A187:482F:64B3:C35A (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As was stated, both definitions exist. That same page actually still exists on their site, it just had moved. It's all updated now. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

change "It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality.[5][6][7]" to "There are many terms that come under bisexual which are often grouped under the 'bisexual umbrella', such as pansexuality (no gender preference); omnisexual (attraction to every gender with preferences) etc." as often people who like any sex or gender aren't pansexual but come under a different related term. ThaliaHolmesMtF (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Bisexuality is attraction to ALL gender identities, regardless of gender.

Bisexuality is a fluid identity. It's NOT attraction to only men and women. It includes non-binary identities. Bisexuality is inclusive, not limited to two genders. Bisexuality is gender blind. LeticiaLL (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See the reply in the section immediately above this one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

LeticiaLL, like I stated on your talk page, we follow what the literature states with WP:Due weight. There is more than one definition of bisexuality. As noted at Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 5#Definition of bisexuality, this has been discussed extensively. Per the sources, the current lead sentence states, "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." The word "or" is clearly in there. That's three definitions of bisexuality. And the "regardless of gender" definition is obviously also the same definition used for pansexuality. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs of the introduction article are very, very wrong.

You see, pansexuality is different from bisexuality. Pan is the attraction to someone no matter their gender/sex, while bisexuality is attraction to more than just one gender/sex. I hope this helps. There is probably more outdated information or incorrect info, but I'm not really bothered to read the whole article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.128.51 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as explained multiple times on this talk page, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Please provide reliable sources for any change you want made, and clearly state what you want changed. ezlev.^talk 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

they don’t want kids either 2601:2C5:601:BE0:2DA1:3980:8D2B:F937 (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 03:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

The definition of bisexuality is almost the exact same as Pansexuality, while they are similar. There is a key difference between the two, bisexuality is specific to just male and females. Pansexuality goes even further beyond that, This article doesn’t mention that very important difference and makes it seem as though both sexualities are the same. 2601:5C2:C480:88C0:C814:79BC:27EF:A7E3 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

3rd Paragraph, 1st sentence.

Error: “as long as it did not encroach on another’s man integrity”

Correction: “As long as it did not encroach on another man’s integrity” 3C24826 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bisexuality is not binary

Bisexual = attracted to more than one gender (could be two, or three, or four...). Btw those "two" could be "women and agender people" (not necessarily men and women).

The article suggests that Bisexuality excludes non-binary (and trans?) people, which is untrue. Biphobic people do argue that bisexuals only like cisgender men and women, but their opinion should not count. While the term "bisexual" was not invented by bisexual people (Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis), Bisexuals (and Bisexuals only) get to define themselves and whom they're attracted to, which they did (https://pastebin.com/HniykJpb): as you can see, the Bisexual Manifesto did challenge the idea that "there are only two genders" back in 1990; the LGBTQ community has accepted it.

If Wikipedia wants to keep the "man and women" definition as an alternate definition, for the sake of historical evolution of the term (from Kraft-Ebing onwards) that's fine. But the article must not suggest that Bisexuals exclude trans or non-binary people (article currently attributes the challenge of gender binary to Pansexuality only). While it's possible to find some binary, trans-exlusionary bisexuals, that is not the definition of Bisexuality. Like being binary and trans-exclusionary is not the definition of Heterosexuality: some heteros are, some are not (and a straight woman in a relation with a trans man is still a straight woman).

Please fix this (I would do it myself but the page is protected due to vandalism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.33.13 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the rest of this talk page, and consider looking back at the lead of the article - you'll find that both definitions are included. That's because Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources say, and attempts to give each view due weight based on the prominence it has in those reliable sources.

Because various reliable sources have defined (and some continue to define) bisexuality as binary, I don't foresee a scenario where the content you seem to want removed will be removed. However, if you have reliable sources you want to share or specific requests for changes in wording, please feel free to reply to this message and continue the discussion. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is so right. You laid it as it is. PASTOR11 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Bisexuality is not the same as pansexuality whatsoever. Bisexual is not an umbrella term. It's a shame you have locked this page and refuse to acknowledge this. Pansexuals and bisexuals are both angry at this incorrect information. Please remove the sentence that states that these identities are the same. 98.220.184.165 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See discussion above ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

it only says that circumstantially. see that's the last definition of bisexuality, which is polysemic, shared with pansexuality, not all definitions Tacielle (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

> It may also be defined to include romantic or sexual attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality. This statement is misleading and incorrect. Pansexuality is distinct from Bisexuality. Change to "This is not to be confused with pansexuality, which is the romantic and sexual attraction to people regardless of sex and gender identity." Adjen Colner (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I do think that we need to replace "also" here. People are continuing to misunderstand what we are saying. I think the suggestion above goes too far the other way by suggesting no overlap at all but I'm sure we can sort something out. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Also" at least makes it clear that both terms are sometimes used to describe such people, which is more accurate and reflective of reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what we have now is wrong, just that people keep on misunderstanding it and that we should try to avoid this. I've made a suggestion further above. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct, Volteer1. I also addressed this above. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bisexuality and pansexuality

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021 (2)

Removing this sentence:

which is also known as pansexuality.[5][6][7] Hamia006 (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Pansexuality and Bisexuality

Bisexual is also known as Pansexual, that is completely wrong. they are two different things so you can't just go around saying your bisexual AND pansexual. if someone could please change this that'd be great Rainy clxuds (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions vary but a lot of definitions of bisexuality have it as an umbrella term that includes pansexuality. Pan people are perfectly free to regard themselves as bisexual and pansexual if that feels authentic and meaningful to them. They absolutely can go around saying that, if they want to, and it is certainly not for us to tell them what they are allowed to think or say. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Bisexuality and Pansexuality

This article currently contains harmful, biphobic, incorrect information regarding the content.

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females,[1][2][3] or to more than one gender.[4] It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality"

Specifically this is the section that I am referencing. Bisexuality and pansexuality are two different sexualities, and to equate them on the internets widest and largest, most used, source of information is harmful and homophobic. This article is currently semi-protected. This is either a gross damaging oversight, or an intentional misleading edit by editors.

This needs to be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.13.149 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS to support this proposed change. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit Conflict] Hello Rainy clxuds. The statement, which closes the first paragraph of the lede section, is cited to three authoritative 21st-century sources ([5], [6] and [7]) which were believed to be Reliable by the editor(s) who added them.

Your assertion may or may not be correct (I genuinely don't know), but to get the statement changed or removed you need to demonstrate that the three sources are themselves incorrect, and/or that they do not actually support the statement. If you cannot do this, but can provide one or more equally authoritative sources that contradict them, we can add this information so as to present both sides of the disagreement.

I do note that at least two of the sources say that the two descriptions are "sometimes" or "in some contexts" equated, not that they are "always" so, and that the lede statement employs the words "may" and "also", which means that if the 3 sources are accurately summarised, the statement is incontrovertable, because the sources are demonstrably examples of this. Remember that the lede should merely summarise material treated more fully in the body of the article, not present all of the relevant material "up front."

It may be appropriate to modify or add to the lede's wording to emphasise more strongly that the equation is not universally accepted, but we still need a published Reliable source supporting this, not just the (so far) uncorroborated opinion of a pseudonymous poster such as yourself (or myself, or any other random internet user). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.206 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is nowhere near as bad as you make out and it is very clearly not biphobic, homophobic or harmful. Such unsupported accusations just make it harder to discuss this sensibly. The opening probably can can be improved though. I would recommend something like this:

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both men and women,[1][2][3] or to more than one gender.[4] Definitions of bisexuality can also include pansexuality, which is romantic or sexual attraction which is not based on sex or gender identity."

I think this is better because it: 1. Defines pansexuality more accurately. 2. Makes it clear that pansexuality can be included in bisexuality but that this is not universally practised. 3. Avoids the Ferengi sounding "males and females" wording. (As we are talking about human sexuality here, we can just say men and women.) What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I like this wording. Hoping to hear others' thoughts as well. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, this is to parallel the terminology in the other sexual orientation articles which say "sex or gender". Many scientific sources on bisexuality as a sexual orientation defines based on the sexes of male and female. "Men and women" and then "more than one gender" just mentions gender twice. This isn't like the Ferengi; this is how scientific sources talk all the time. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this preferred wording. I'll go ahead and add it to the article. The Land (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No reason has been given for it except WP:ILIKEIT. Certainly no sources have been brought up. Many definitions, especially scientific ones, are based on male and female sexes. Are people denying this? Am I going to have plop down a source pile? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you really need to revert the whole change? That brings back the original problem vis-a-vis pansexuality, which I thought we had found a good solution to. If you want to argue this point then please can you reinstate the change with "males and females" in the meantime? At least, that would solve the problem over pansexuality and be better than what we had before.

As for "Are people denying this?" At least to some extent, yes. While I am sure that we can find many sources that define bisexuality in terms of sex, and which omit to say gender, I think that those will mostly date from a time when the terms were commonly used interchangeably. I think that the majority of contemporary definitions either focus primarily on gender or are open enough to allow for both interpretations. (I'm not pretending to have done any sort of a survey on this and I'm certainly not denying that there will be some counterexamples.) I do feel that using "males and females" here is jarring and less clear. In particular, it could leave the door open to that bizarre, wilful misinterpretation of the definition where, for example, a straight man or a lesbian who is attracted to a transgender woman is mislabelled as bisexual as a malicious way of questioning their stated sexuality. Now, I know that there is a limit to how much we can do to preclude such weird misinterpretations of what we write but we should try to reduce the risk of this if we can.

So... Can we find a wording that accommodates both definitions without it becoming too complicated? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Both of those changes were bad and, frankly, are the result of outside WP:CANVASSING. Making the definition 100% about gender is POV pushing, plain and simple. The sources that define it in terms of sex know the sex and gender distinction and are academic sources by academics in sexology and LGBT studies. Many of them are already in the article. The current wording already includes both definitions - sex and gender - by saying "to more than one gender" after "males and females". Many do define bisexuality as attraction to both sexes - not just "men and women" or "more than one gender". Malicious definitions go both ways - one could also argue that since attraction usually occurs before gender identity can be confirmed, everyone is bisexual since they might be attracted to a trans person who hasn't yet transitioned at all. We don't go by made-up scenarios but by reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's 5 diverse sources that define it based on sex. This should satisfy those pushing for gender-only, but there's plenty more. Again, my point is not that gender-based definitions are wrong, but that both definitions need to be included.

• "To the extent that we could explore that heterogeneity here, it appears that the antagonistic pleiotropy effect may apply to both bisexuality and homosexuality, though there was some variation in significance of the effect across definitions of SSB. More precise characterization of this issue will require larger samples with more nuanced data on same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and behaviours." 2021, Nature Human Behaviour
• "Jabbour et al. (1) examine the extent to which men who self-report bisexual orientation exhibit bisexual genital arousal, employing a larger sample than had been used in previous research (n = 588 who provided self-reported arousal data; n = 474 with genital responses). The results confirm that men who report attraction to both sexes are also more genitally aroused by both sexes..." 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
• "Sexual orientation can be defined as one's relatively enduring sexual attraction to the other sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), both sexes (bisexuality) or neither sex (asexuality)" 2020, Hormones and Behavior
• "it should be noted that bisexuality has historically been defined in three ways: ‘a combination of male/female, masculine/feminine, or heterosexual/homosexual – [these] have different histories, [but] they are far from distinct’ (MacDowell, 2009, p. 4). We follow Rust (2000) in using the term ‘bisexual’ as an adjective to refer to sex acts and attractions to same-sex and other-sex persons, and as a noun to mean people who have these attractions." 2017, The Sociological Review
• "The first phenomenon, sexual behavior, consists of sexual interactions between persons of the same sex (homosexual), the other sex (heterosexual), or both sexes (bisexual). The second phenomenon, sexual identity, is one’s self-conception (sometimes disclosed to others and sometimes not) as a homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual person. The third phenomenon of sexual orientation is one’s degree of sexual attraction to the same sex, both sexes, or the other sex....Although it seems reasonable to presume that bisexual-identified individuals exhibit both same-sex and other-sex attractions and sexual behavior, other patterns are possible." 2016, Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Crossroads ^-talk- 03:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just had a read through the "Bisexuality" chapter in Sex from Plato to Paglia: a philosophical encyclopedia (the fifth reference, and the only one people might have trouble accessing). It defines bisexuality as: "Broadly speaking, the sexual orientation of homosexuals is for their own sex/gender, the orientation of heterosexuals is for the other sex/gender, and the orientation of bisexuals is for both." Regarding pansexuality, it says "Some bisexuals' attractions, however, appear to be gender 'blind'; that is, they are attracted to individuals independently of their sex- and gender linked attributes [...] People with a gender-blind or "pansexual" orientation are open not only to relations with men and women as traditionally figured in our society but also to relations with individual who identify themselves as some combination of man/woman or some alternative gender entirely." The first line in the article is okay in referring to both sex and gender, but perhaps it should be made clear that the first definition really is the primary definition, and clear up the terminology in the second definition.

I would support: It may also be defined to include romantic or sexual attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity, which is known as pansexuality. Which is both a bit more clear, and IMO "regardless of their sex or gender identity" slightly more faithfully reproduces the sources and at least aligns with pansexuality. Nothing substantially different though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

So:

"Men and women" is simple plain English. The fact that technical sources might use "sex" instead of "gender" is frankly neither here nor there.

I've added Volteer's suggestion for the second sentence.

Media coverage of this page resulting in a bunch of long-term, good-faith editors getting involved with it is not canvassing problem.

Crossroads, to be blunt you have a bit of a wp:own problem. Please give it a rest.

Regards, The Land (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That reliable sources define it both with respect to sex and gender is not "neither here nor there". We just reflect the views that get published in reliable sources (as is laid out in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). If reliable sources use both, then we have to as well. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I wasn't sure I'd have to say it, but a reasonable objection to using "include" (or "includes") in place of what was there is that it only gives the umbrella term meaning of bisexuality. But, and this point has been elucidated in previous discussions, bisexuality may be defined just like pansexuality is defined or bisexual people may define or view their bisexuality just like pansexual people define or view their pansexuality (which those coming to this talk page to complain should maybe just accept). One example is where Young Bisexual Women’s Experiences in Secondary Schools says, "Participants in Rust's (2000) study asserted their bisexual identity 'was not a combination of attractions to women and to men but an attraction to people regardless of their gender' (p. 213)." Older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans People: Minding the Knowledge Gaps says that most work in the field of "critical bisexuality" uses the "attraction to more than one gender or attraction regardless of gender" definition. Ageing and Sexualities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives says its chapter 5 "defines bisexual as 'attraction to more than one gender or attraction regardless of gender'." Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture says, "Some bisexual people report that they are attracted to people regardless of gender, and as such, there may be some similarity between bisexuality and pansexuality." I'm unsure why this particular source says "some similarity" when "regardless of gender" is the (primary) definition of pansexuality. But that aside, "regardless of gender" has been one definition of bisexuality for a long time, even as far back as 1995. This is why bisexual and pansexual may be used interchangeably and pansexuality may be considered an alternative term or identity for bisexuality (which is discussed further in the pansexuality article). But maybe using "includes" for the lead, and letting the definitions section elaborate on the multiple definitions, is the better option. I hate to bend to unwarranted brigading complaints, however.

"Male and female", it appears, is used to emphasize the "sex or gender" equation. For this description, we could instead say, "toward persons of the opposite and same sex." This follows the word usage seen at the heterosexuality and homosexuality articles. If we say "both sexes" or "either sex", some will have a problem with it because they'll think we're saying there are only two genders or that we're excluding intersex people. Still, I think "either sex" would work better than "both sexes" in that case. I also know that some prefer "other sex" to "opposite sex" (because of the "only two" objection), but most sources say "opposite" instead of "other" and it'll result in less arguments than using "both" or "either." To Crossroads's point, Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality, while looking at different definitions, says that "most definitions of bisexuality in research focus on the sexes of the target individuals one is sexually active with or affectionately attracted to (van Anders, 2015)." If this has changed since 2015, or 2018 when the book was published, it's not evident in anything I can see. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You make a lot of good points. It does seem true that, while the "bisexual umbrella" type understanding of things certainly exists, it's also true that both a) some academic sources and some bisexual people define bisexuality as the "regardless of gender" kind of attraction, and that b) this also isn't the primary or most common definition or understanding of bisexuality; I think we can reflect both of these things in the lead. How do you feel about something like: It may also be defined to include romantic or sexual attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. I do think a lot of the complaints were due to people simply misreading the lead, and I certainly agree we shouldn't be changing anything just because of the existence of off-wiki canvassing, but I think we can mention the fact that the two terms can be used interchangeably or that some people define bisexual attraction that way, while still making sure it's conveyed that this is not the most common understanding of things in the literature.

Regarding the first sentence, it would make a lot of sense to phrase it as "the opposite sex or gender" in heterosexuality and "the same sex or gender" in homosexuality because saying e.g. "men attracted to men and women attracted to women" is unmanageably clunky. For bisexuality, "towards people of the opposite and same sex or gender" would be the direct analogue, and to incorporate the APA definition it would have to be "towards people of the opposite and same sex or gender, or to more than one gender". That could work, though it's very difficult to read and "towards both males and females, or to more than one gender" to me seems significantly clearer and less clunky. Doesn't mean there isn't better solutions out there though.‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what "and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably" really adds. It's already stated that bisexuality may be defined as the same. We could just change "to include" to "as". Crossroads ^-talk- 22:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's months since I commented in this discussion, but I think I should say I did consider "toward persons of the opposite and same sex or gender", but I remembered that the second half of the first sentence focuses on gender. The first half focuses on the sexes. So I kept the proposal for that half sex-based. There are sources that phrase things like my suggestion and can be used for the first half. Saying "or gender" and then saying "more than one gender" is repetitive, I think. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we do need to reopen this, even though I think we did make good progress. Things are definitely better than they were before. Even so, we still see people completely misunderstanding what we have written. I think the words "may" and "also" are confusing people. It is not that they intentionally convey any wrong meaning, it is just that that they are prone to misinterpretation. We are talking about the very first paragraph of the article. This has the power to frame how readers understand everything else we write here. So, while I do appreciate that this whole process has been exhausting, I do think that it is worth making that paragraph as clear as is humanly possible. The key point is that I think we need to make it very explicit that pansexuality is sometimes but not always defined as being included within bisexuality. That way we can preclude both genuine misunderstandings and people looking to stir up arguments. Here is what I suggest:

"Some definitions of bisexuality include pansexuality, which is romantic or sexual attraction to people regardless of their sex or gender identity. Other definitions regard pansexuality as either falling within a wider bisexual community or as being entirely separate from bisexuality."

I also think we should consider whether to move this out of the first paragraph to later on in the introduction. It is important but it is not the core of the subject so there is no need to have it in the very first paragraph. By moving it down a bit, readers will not encounter it until after they have read enough about the subject to be able to understand what is being said. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some clarification is a good idea. I have to think through the specifics of your proposal some more. One quick thought: pan is indeed sometimes regarded as falling within the wider bi community, but the reverse is also true. Maybe we should mention both views? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of that reverse possibility but if there is RS support for it then I guess it could be included. I think that would belong in the article body and not the introduction though. We don't want to overcomplicate the introduction any more than we have to. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal is less clear and is WP:UNDUE by getting into unnecessary detail and overstating the idea that pansexuality is entirely separate. It implies that calling "regardless of gender" attraction pansexuality - and many who feel that way may identify as just bisexual - is more correct, which is POV. As Volteer1 said below, ""Also" at least makes it clear that both terms are sometimes used to describe such people, which is more accurate and reflective of reliable sources." It suggests a distinction between bisexuality and the bisexual community not found in RS.

These people trying to change it are not misunderstanding, they are engaging in WP:Advocacy of a new point of view that exists amongst some on social media but is not the scholarly view - namely, they are pushing the POV that bisexuality and pansexuality are entirely separate. Many bisexuals call this viewpoint bisexual erasure and biphobia and say that bisexuality has always included all genders, so changing will lead to complaints from another group anyway. At least one of these articles discusses that perspective. These drive-bys from Twitter need to learn what is correct. If they are convinced their view is correct then they can get in touch with academics and convince them to publish RS first. We should not be convinced to change text merely by annoyance from meatpuppetry egged on by a PinkNews article.

We can do what is done on some other articles that face disruptive drive-by edit requests - add a talk page notice that edit requests about the definition that do not cite reliable sources will be reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that there is some genuine misunderstanding going on, separate from the unnecessary drama. There clearly is a distinction to be made between pan attraction and (other?) bi attraction. I don't think that this is controversial. The mere fact that we have a separate article about pansexuality shows that it is accepted that that pansexuality is a real, separate topic. The difficulty is in how best to describe the diversity of views on the relationship between the two without it getting overcomplicated. I believe that the real, legitimate, distinction is in the nature of the attraction and is unrelated to all the noise about inconclusivity. The attempts to paint bi people as enbyphobic exclusionaries were just divisive drama and (as a bi person myself) I am advocating absolutely none of that nonsense.

So, what can we do? One possibility it to just remove the sentence from the introduction and let the article body cover it. After all, this is not the pansexuality article. If we can't find a simple statement to adequately summarise the situation then maybe we don't need it at all, nevermind in the very first paragraph? If we do want to say something in the introduction then maybe we could say something broader and simpler like "The relationship between bisexuality and pansexuality is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community". So, instead of trying to describe the various views within the debate, we can just say that there is a debate and let people follow the links to learn more if they want to.

BTW, I am not against your idea of adding a notice, either here or to the edit page itself. I hope that they are trailing off now but if the drive-bys continue then we should probably give that a try. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it improves things to have only one of the definitions in the lead paragraph and the other definition in a latter paragraph, especially since the definition is debated. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

hi, please remove “ which is also known as pansexuality.” this is inaccurate and hurtful towards the bisexual community. thank you !Lemmaloo (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Lemmaloo (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discussion is ongoing above. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021 (3)

Ok, I'm bisexual and I am very offended that this page says that Bisexuality is the same as as pansexuality! Pansexuality is in the bi umbrella, it isn't the same thing. Bisexuality is a sexual attraction to more than one gender. Pansexuality is sexual attraction to all genders without a preference. LeonardoLion123 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue discussing how the article can be improved but the sockpuppetry has to stop! --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021

The phrase “It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality” Is greatly incorrect. Bisexuality and pansexuality, even though they are incredibly close in concept and very similar, they have a particular difference, in which bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders having in consideration the gender they are attracted to, so a bisexual person can be more attracted to women than men, and still be bisexual. On the other side, pansexuality is attraction to all genders regardless of the gender they’re being attracted to, so a pansexuality person doesn’t really care whether their partner is a woman or a man. This distinguishment is very important to a big part of the bisexual and pansexual community, and it is insensitive to just invalidate the way they identify as saying that they’re both the same. Margharet cullen (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021 (2)

Change "It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality." to "It may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is similar to pansexuality." 100.16.25.97 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we are obviously being brigaded. Did some prominent Twitterite link here or something? Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: https://twitter.com/bee4ndboo/status/1433427833750056966 CaderaSpindrift (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

After reading the sources used to justify that statement, I think "similar" would better choice of words. Sex and Society for instance says the terms can sometimes be used interchangeably, but not that they are the same concepts. The Land (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh? The article isn't saying they're the same concepts, though. "In some contexts, the term pansexuality is used interchangeably with bisexuality" seems to be exactly what we're saying with "it may also be defined as..." ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Better terminology would be “related”, however many pansexuals and bisexuals would say they are different things. I do agree with this change however. The History Nerd5 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• The article isn't saying what people are claiming. It says that there are varying definitions of bisexuality, one of which is also called pansexuality. That's it. Some people are being activists and pretending they are completely separate things with no overlap, but the academic literature does not support that. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. The views of the non-experts at the tabloid PinkNews and randos on Twitter does not matter at all. We follow WP:RS with preferences highlighted at WP:SOURCETYPES. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

After reading more into the drama on twitter i apologize for getting wrapped into this. The History Nerd5 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This "twitter drama" is what parts of the lgbtq+ community have been arguing about for literal decades. The general consensus appears to be that bisexuality and pansexuality can have different definitions based on people's individual experiences, and are not the same thing. But "there are varying definitions of bisexuality, one of which is also called pansexuality" (which implies that pan is just a form of bi) is incorrect or at least very poorly phrased. The terminology I've heard most often to describe the relationship/occasional overlap between bi and pan is "bisexual and pansexual both fall under the multisexual umbrella/spectrum, and therefore may be similar". So in conclusion I think that "bisexuality may also be defined as romantic or sexual attraction to people of any sex or gender identity, which is also known as pansexuality" should be changed to "there are varying definitons of bisexuality. Some of them may be related to pansexuality". I also think that in terms of categorization, pan should not be a subset of bi, rather there should just be "Multisexual" with bi and pan as its subsets. Sources: https://www.healthline.com/health/bisexual-vs-pansexual#comparing https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/bisexual-vs-pansexual#bisexual-definition https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/types-of-sexuality#:~:text=Multisexual%20is%20a%20broad%20term,term%20include%20bisexual%20and%20omnisexual. Technical-restriction-time (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point both The History Nerd5 and Technical-restriction-time to the discussion happening above, in the #Bisexuality and Pansexuality section, where users are discussing about how to better word the lede. Your comments there would be appreciated. Isabelle ^🔔 23:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We can't go by WP:Original research about what the LGBT+ community thinks. There are actual academic sources on this, and they are greatly preferred per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:DUE. These outweigh the pop-med sites you are citing, one of which does not mention "multisexual". Many sources are clear that it is pansexuality that falls under the bisexual umbrella. That is the position of the American Institute of Bisexuality, which publishes the Journal of Bisexuality: [1] For more examples, see: "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)." [2] And: "There are many other identity labels that could fall under the wider umbrella of bisexuality, such as pansexual, omnisexual, biromantic, or fluid (Eisner, 2013)." [3] Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki discussion of this issue

• Wakefield, Lily (3 September 2021). "Wikipedia faces backlash after saying pansexuality and bisexuality are the same". PinkNews.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is annoying to see that headline as that was never what we were trying to say. It was just poorly worded. All the drama has been completely unnecessary and, if anything, has only distracted from sorting the problem out. On the plus side, at least it has been sorted out and, even if the wording is not quite optimal in my view, it is much better now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, the PinkNews article didn't even explain the distinction well. I fully understand and support the moral campaigning regarding nomenclature for LGBTQ identities, but targeting Wikipedia for having the "wrong" description (instead of explaining the various efforts and meanings) is not very productive. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

But it is sometimes defined the same as pansexuality. Wikipedia was being faithful to the scholarship. People who consider accurately reporting on that to be inaccurate should object to the scholarship rather than rage against Wikipedia. To quote, Ageing and Sexualities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, "Definitions of bisexuality vary and have different implications." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's frustrating. There are probably some incremental improvements we can make to our article. But basically Pink News are pretending an outraged tweet is news, which is irritating. The Land (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And when you go to that PinkNews article now, literally two of the tweets they cite aren't even available anymore. Its strange that the same number of people didn't flood the pansexuality page (which I've had on a watchlist for a while now), or even the talk page on the pansexuality page, but I'm glad there was at least some discussion here. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sddone01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chele1169.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Representation examples missing

The TV section of Media Representation is lacking several very pertinent bisexual television characters, including Nolan Ross from Revenge, Sarah Lance from the Arrowverse (Arrow/Legends of Tomorrow), John Constantine from the same shows and also Constantine, and Michael Guerin from Roswell New Mexico and probably more. I think the section in general needs to be updated. 2603:7080:CF00:8814:9996:4CA0:CF5B:8F8B (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is the Media portrayals of bisexuality page after all. I'm a little hesitant to add any other characters to the section in this article... Historyday01 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sociosexuality

While the Richard Lippa papers and the section in general have a lot of good information, there's a lot of context that's missing from both, as well as strange wording.

He proposes someone who would be at any point in the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum will become bisexual if they are high on the sociosexuality dimension.

This seems to contradict the section about the biological origins of bisexuality. It's also worded in a very confusing way, since it implies if someone was on the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum but low in sociosexuality, they wouldn't be bisexual.

He proposes this as explaining phenomena such as increased juvenile delinquency among bisexuals

The paper cited as support for this has a very strange definition of bisexuality, where it was split into "mostly heterosexual" "bisexual", and "mostly homosexual/lesbian". Bisexual here was equal attraction to males and females. Mostly heterosexual and bisexual men were more delinquent, whereas mostly gay men were less delinquent than average. Bisexual women were the most delinquent, followed by lesbian, mostly lesbian, and mostly heterosexual (depending on the measure). Under the definition used by the article, bisexuals would be both more and less likely to be juvenile delinquents. I personally am also skeptical of how reliable this data is, since 1.) it's based on self-reporting and 2.) it was gathered in the 90s/early-2000s. Since there was a lot more stigma then due to the recentness of the AIDs Crisis (where bi people were heavily demonized), it's possible that out bisexuals would be more antisocial, whereas more prosocial bisexuals would have just identified as straight. Although since it was just a survey, it's possible outness didn't effect the results at all. The paper also didn't control for SES or any other factors, so I'm skeptical of if the link between bisexuality and juvenile delinquency is as inherent as presented here. All in all, while I don't think this source should be removed, the article should mention that by "bisexual", they mean equal attraction to both men and women.

...increased dark triad traits among bisexual women.

The paper cited for this only shows those traits among a subset of bisexual women, specifically Kinsey 1 and 2 bisexual women. Additionally, the study used the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. It did not replicate this result when using a longer questionnaire (although it still replicated the sociosexuality findings). Additionally, this research was done on a W.E.I.R.D. sample (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) of college students, and may not be applicable to the general population of bisexual women. I propose changing this to "increased dark triad traits among Kinsey 1 and 2 bisexual women (although this study only measured college students)."

Critics of this theory have described elements observed as coming from experiences of biphobia,[65] but Lippa couners that these phenomena are present even among heterosexual identifying people with some same sex attraction, who would likely be heterosexual passing.[65][69]

Lippa's argument here contradicts other research. Taylor (2019) indicates that being in a heterosexual relationship (and/or having an unsupportive partner) and having internalized self-hatred can lead to mental health issues for bisexual people. Evanj1999 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article say that bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing under CERTAIN circumstances?

Blue in the flag represents attraction to opposite-sex attraction, and Pink Represents same-sex attraction

The article basically says that the word bisexual can also be used to mean pansexual, although bi and pan are different things. The references cited for this refer to certain people or certain circumstances who are using that definition, not to the dictionary definition having been changed. There is great outrage in the bisexual community about what is sometimes referred to as "bi erasure," the attempted elimination of the concept that there are people who are attracted to exactly 2 genders, the binary male and the binary female. The only way that bisexuality and pansexuality could be the same is if there were only TWO genders, which is demonstrably untrue, given the existence of intersexed people at the very least, if you reject the idea of there being many other non-binary genders. PLEASE reword this to not make it look like there aren't people attracted to just 2 genders, or like bisexual people are attracted to every gender, or that people other than the 2 binary genders do exist. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3C0:F170:D98:8563:2921:541F (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a LOT of discussion about this very issue last fall, a flurry of responses and attention in fact. Since it a contentious topic, I personally don't want to change it on my own, but would rather rely on consensus. My understanding of the consensus is that the current definitions are based on reliable sources, which is why they are written that way. Having said that, I would definitely support a re-writing/re-phrasing of the section to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be a pleonasm, since the sentence already includes the word "also" twice ("It may also be defined..." and "...which is also known as pansexuality"). — Tazuco 23:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

Add Pansexuality to the Associated terms of the Other terms 71.241.134.201 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Already covered in several places, including the lede and the info boxes. RudolfRed (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bisexuality isn't always binary

I have a bi friend who's attracted to women and non binary people 2A00:23C5:AC81:C301:A8A7:C2BE:3A6D:C7A5 (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Bisexual

Basically the definition of bisexual is someone attracted to two or more genders with or without a preference. Just correcting this. 178.190.199.95 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There are almost as many "definitions" of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2022

Please change "Basically the definition of bisexual is someone attracted to two or more genders with or without a preference. Just correcting this." to "The definition of bisexual is some that is attracted to all genders with or without a preference."

I am a genderfluid bisexual and the meaning isn't limited to "two or more genders" Hopiie (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While your lived experience is valid, we require reliable sources to source any content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Bisexuality is not the attraction to more than one gender, it is attraction to people regardless of sex or gender. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_flag for more information. RoadkillCollector101 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That is already one of the definitions given in the very first sentence. Madeline (part of me) 13:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Bisexuality definition is inaccurate

I’m lost as to who’s saying what to whom and why, this is confusing and unproductive. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Bisexuality as attraction to men and women has been rejected by the bisexual community and activists for decades. The prefix bi- is in reference to the fact that this is a sexual orientation with both homosexual and heterosexual attraction. One of the most common definitions is attraction to more than one gender. Xejnsewdotcom (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC) The prefix bi- is in reference to the fact that this is a sexual orientation with both homosexual and heterosexual attraction. @Xejnsewdotcom: Really? Got any source on that? -- Python Drink (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC) https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.904629116.0329/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg From "Anything That Moves", a magazine made by the Bay Area Bisexual Network (full manifesto can be found here https://bimanifesto.carrd.co/#manifesto). Tired of biphobes and queerphobes asking nonsense questions under the guise of information discussion and Wikipedia contribution/etiquette... these are things that are made by the bisexual community and are important to the bisexual community; it will hold more authority than a heterosexual/monosexual person's commentary on bi people ever will regardless of whether it is on Carrd or in a academic study. This tone is unnecessary. TL;DR, the source is bisexuals. 2600:4040:A034:A300:F5:AA7D:CADC:1DDD (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC) There are almost as many "definitions" of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. 04:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC) No there isnt, there is one definition, and then a bunch of misinformation. 2607:FEA8:A9E1:8200:1527:B5ED:90CB:F7B7 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

Might be interesting to have an etymology/history of the term section, since he term bisexual hasn't always referred to the sexual identity we know it as now. It used to refer more to plants in botany (that we would now call hermaphrodite plants), and other similar cases. PitterPatter533 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I think that would be a good idea. Note #20 notes the Online Etymology Dictionary, but I always have questions about its reliability, which was briefly discussed here and here (some suggest using OED or something else instead). But, if there are some reliable sources talking about it, then go for it. I'm only one editor, though, and I'd be interested to what editors have to say on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Flag

Is there a way to insert an image of the bisexual flag so that it is the image at the top of the page, and not the symbol/logo being used across all of Wikipedia's "Sexual Orientation" pages? It would be nice if the sidebar and images were set up more in the way they are on the pansexual page; it's just a matter of respect and legitimacy. 76.78.140.92 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the template: infobox sexuality which is in use on some but not all sexuality and gender identity pages. I didn't fill out any of the other information for this infobox, not sure what else is worth including for this page, there is already a lot of sidebar boxes happening. Gnisacc (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

this page was obviously made by a transphobe using words like "attracted to both males and females" which isn't the actual definition of bisexual

Attraction to two or more genders LavenderAnxiety (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 04:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference 5

Why does reference 5 link to the definition of pansexual? Bookyteeth (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The reference is to the encyclopedia article about pansexual in Britannica. Probably specifically this section:

Pansexuality plus bisexuality
On the other side of the debate are those who maintain that the prefix bi- in bisexual refers to being both of the two monosexual orientations in combination—i.e., being both homosexual (homo- meaning “same”) and heterosexual (hetero- meaning “different”). According to this definition, bisexual-identifying people are attracted to both the same gender and different genders. Hence, the label is as potentially inclusive of all possible genders as the term pansexual.

This seems to verify the preceding alternative definition of bisexuality as attraction to both people of the same gender and different genders. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

oh huh. I think that could be more clear in the page here. Bookyteeth (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Which interpretation of the Bi flag should we use?

It says in the article at Symbols and Observances

"A common symbol of the bisexual community is the bisexual flag, which has a deep pink stripe at the top for homosexuality, a blue one on the bottom for heterosexuality, and a purple one – blending the pink and blue – in the middle to represent bisexuality."

But in the Bisexual Flag article it says that Page described it that way but

"Since the original design, the purple overlap has been reinterpreted and is now widely understood to represent attraction regardless of sex or gender."

Which interpretation is the one that should be in this article? Maybe it should mention both? Adeeta (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we should put too much emphasis on explaining pride flags stripe by stripe. Many such explanations are some combination of incomplete, dubious and post-hoc. I've seen explanations for some of the other flags which are just plain silly. The explanations offered here are far more defensible and I think that both explanations can form a coherent narrative of how interpretation of the flag has evolved over time. Nonetheless, I see this primarily as a matter to be covered in the article about the flag itself. Rather than have an incomplete explanation here, maybe it is best if we don't try to explain it here at all? If anybody wants to know, the flag article is only a click away. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Article description: "either gender"?

The article description says that bisexuality is attraction to "either gender". Doesn't this enforce the idea that there are only two genders? I'd change it to "any gender", but bisexuality doesn't mean that for some people. How should this be changed? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 01:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. At first I wasn't sure what you meant as the phrase "either gender" isn't in the article text but then I realised that you meant the short description. "Any gender" is more in line with what the article says so I have changed it to that. DanielRigal (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal Sorry, I should've been more clear that I meant the short description. I don't have much experience with this kind of thing, so thanks so much for changing it. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 06:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to check, using this new phrasing we're not stepping on the toes of the pansexuality article/subject right? Some people get extremely worked up about labels, so I just wanted to triple check. Jasphetamine (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No. It's fine. Both bisexual and pansexual people can be attracted to people of any gender. The difference is in the type of attraction. The people trying to stir up artificial beef between the two are bad actors and can safely be ignored. DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@DanielRigal

Thanks for your help! I had an idea for the short description: maybe it could be "Sexual attraction to people of more than one gender", which I believe would be more inclusive. What do you think?

JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Sexual attraction to more than one gender", or something similar. Whoops. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 21:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

One common definition that is similar to what you propose is "attracted to two or more genders including one's own". That distinction is required to avoid including too many people who might not want to be. I guess it might be possible to clarify it as "Sexual attraction to people of more than one gender, including one's own" but it is best to keep the short description as simple as possible so I think it is probably better as it is. People who want detail should read the article, not just the short description. I'd be interested to know if anybody else has any opinions on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 01:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

including too many people who might not want to be. Except that's not how definitions work. A term include people whether they like or not. An example of it is hypergamy, I doubt most hypergamous people want being grouped like that. And if someone is attracted to multiple genders unlike their own, that's valid. That happens with non-binary people who are not attracted to their own gender (some neo/microlabel it as penultisexual or differosexual). 177.172.86.131 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A Quick Question

When I’m on articles about sexual attraction types I see that it says sexual attraction and also Romantic attraction. I think that romantic attraction differs from sexual attraction, and that we can have different articles articles about romantic attractions, including Biromantic, Heteromantic, etc. Should we make a articles, or at least specify that romantic attraction is different from sexual attraction?

-Objectsshowsarethebest Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Objectsshowsarethebest: See the Notability guidelines. I'm doubtful that there are sufficient reliable sources on which to base separate articles about the -romantic terms (besides Aromantic, which does have its own article), nor that there's really much notable to say about each one except defining it and explaining the sexual-romantic split, both of which are already done in the existing articles Romantic orientation and Split attraction model. If you're interested in this topic, you could try improving those articles, but mind the WP:Neutral point of view and be ready to recognize and acknowledge when your viewpoint is not-yet widely accepted.

It's true that biromantic and bisexual are distinguishable concepts, but it's extremely prevalent, even in reliable sources, to use sexuality labels to refer to the corresponding romantic attraction (as in the term "straight couples", "gay panic", "lesbian romance" etc.). So it seems acceptable to define each term as as a romantic or sexual attraction or behavior; that "or" is more of an "and/or".

IMO: defining the label bisexual strictly in terms of sexual attraction is wrong, and likely to offend people who hold that identity (hello!), particularly given the existing prejudice of bisexuals as promiscuous/hypersexual/sex-obsessed, as well as the active right-wing reactionary movements which consider all queer identities to be sexual perversions.

Hope this helps. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, me personally as a bisexual person think they are distinguishable due to there suffixes and differences. For example bisexual or biromantic uses the suffixes, but if you disagree on this issue that’s totally ok! I personally identify with both, Bisexual and Biromantic in case you were wondering too. I got my information at the LGBTQ+ wiki, I’m not sure where they got their sources at but I tend to agree with the things on the wiki, despite having some mistakes. I do also, understand were you’re coming from when you send the notability link I do think though, that romantic LGBTQ+ identities could stay as a possibility for the future. And I understand your point with having romantic attractions and, sexual attractions on pages like these, However as a bisexual person I do distinguish these. The LGBTQ+ wiki again, to help your point may be wrong so I also do have to a little digging to see if I can prove my point a little more. By the way I will definitely be editing more articles on the topics of sexual attractions and the LGBTQ+ community. I also agree that, us bisexuals are being stereotyped by the active right-wing reactionary movement’s. Have a great day :) - Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh! And they are different because romantic attractions do often times (at least in my experience differ) so that’s another reason for my question along with the ones stated above :). Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The LGBTQIA+ Fandom wiki is not a reliable source (see WP:UGC), but their Bisexual article references the following sources, which all include romantic attraction in their definition of bisexual.

• "What is Bisexuality?". Bi.org. Retrieved 2024-02-02. Bisexuality is a broad and inclusive term that describes physical attraction, romantic attraction, or sexual behavior that is not limited to one sex.
• "What Is Bisexuality? – Bisexual Resource Center". Retrieved 2024-02-02. Bisexuality: Attraction to more than one gender. This attraction could be physical, romantic, and/or emotional. Bisexual people may experience different kinds of attraction to different genders, and their attractions may change over time.
• "Understanding Bisexuality". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2024-02-02. The term "bisexual" is used to describe a person who experiences emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to, or engages in romantic or sexual relationships with, more than one sex or gender.
• WebMD Editorial (2017). "What Is Bisexual?". WebMD. Retrieved 2024-02-02. Bisexuality is an attraction to more than one gender. Those who identify as bisexual feel a sexual and/or romantic attraction to people of a different gender as well as their own.

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I made this question because some of my friends have different sexual attractions and romantic attractions (they don’t match up) I do see lots of sources do put “Bisexual” and “Biromantic” as the same and I guess that it is to minor to make an edit of. I have an interest in my community so I really want to edit more articles on the topic of LGBTQ+ and see if I can make a difference about anything! Thank you :) — Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want, there's the biromanticism article in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia that anyone can translate into English and then adapt to the Anglophone Wikipedia. You can start at Draft:Biromanticism (biromantic and biromanticism are currently redirects).

Though, people can eventually propose merging both topics, or argue that it would be wp:CFORK.

Comment: I'm monosexual biromantic and I feel included in the bisexual polysemy, since it carries multiple definitions, at least in some I'm included. Be mindful with restrictive prescriptions.

I feel romantic attraction could have its own article if substantially developed. 2804:214:86EF:3163:4CF7:CCFF:FEE6:8660 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Objectsshowsarethebest and IP 2804, a general comment: this page is not for general discussion about bisexuality. It is strictly for discussing how best to improve the article based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, notably that of reliable sources. A corollary of this is that the personal attitudes, opinions, life experiences, values, and personal sexual or romantic orientation of yourself or anybody you know are not germane here; please do not discuss them further (you may add them to your user page or Talk page, if you wish). If you have specific proposals of how to improve the article (such as translating the Portuguese one—that's a specific prooposal), then by all means, please do discuss them. However any tangential information not related to improving this article or not based on published, reliable sources is subject to removal from this page as off-topic, so let's get the discussion back on track: based strictly on what you have read in specific, named, reliable, published works, do you have a proposal on how to improve this page? Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)