| Revision as of 06:01, 19 August 2014 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Someone (another editor) should add Pansexual/Omnisexual to the Sexual orientation template and also. . .: Add/Tweak my post.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:07, 19 August 2014 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :] is already listed, under "Non-binary categories". It looks like it was added on 30 September 2012 . ] (]) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | :] is already listed, under "Non-binary categories". It looks like it was added on 30 September 2012 . ] (]) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, pansexuality is already on the template. The reason that it is not listed as a sexual orientation is because the vast majority of scholars do not see it as a sexual orientation, but rather, if they mention it all, as a ] that indicates bisexuality. No authoritative sources on sexual orientation label pansexuality as a sexual orientation, and the vast majority of those sources don't even mention it. See |
:Yes, pansexuality is already on the template. The reason that it is not listed as a sexual orientation is because the vast majority of scholars do not see it as a sexual orientation, but rather, if they mention it all, as a ] that indicates bisexuality. No authoritative sources on sexual orientation label pansexuality as a sexual orientation, and the vast majority of those sources don't even mention it. See ] and ], where this matter has been discussed extensively and that ] is to not list it on the template as a sexual orientation. At this point in time, it is ] to call pansexuality a sexual orientation. Also see the debate about pansexuality vs. bisexuality in the Pansexuality article, which clarifies things even further; some people see pansexuality as distinct from bisexuality; some people do not see it as distinct from bisexuality. This is also clear by the debates at ]; a ] is This bisexuality vs. pansexuality argument is one of the biggest consistent issues I have dealt with at Misplaced Pages. As for why ] is listed as a sexual orientation, despite there being debate among scholars as to whether or not it is a sexual orientation, see ] and ] (my view of a ] was somewhat faulty back then, though). WP:Consensus has been to leave it listed as a sexual orientation. Unlike with pansexuality, scholars are in a significant debate about whether or not to call asexuality a sexual orientation. With pansexuality, again, they usually don't mention it, or they define it as an aspect of bisexuality...either by calling it bisexuality or by directly calling it an aspect of bisexuality. ] (]) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:07, 19 August 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual orientation template. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Someone (another editor) should add Pansexual/Omnisexual to the Sexual orientation template and also. . .
Given the meaning of 'Pansexual', probably add, and find citation for, orientation not only to 'persons' as the article now states in its paragraph 1 but 'persons or things' as personhood is likely not a distinction made by some or most pansexuals.
After all, 'Asexual' is already included in this template.
You might also have to distinguish between generally Pansexual, meaning some people and/or things of any kind MIGHT attract a Pansexual, just as only some women are attractive to homosexual/lesbian women, not all, and Omnisexual which is really just the same word using Latin instead of Greek but is more likely to imply that EVERYTHING attracts an Omnisexual, probably still in varying degree, but possibly more than to a Pansexual in the series homo-, hetero-, a-.
So there's a possibility that the Pansexuality article might have a subsection making this distinction, or that Omnisexual needs to be broken out as a separate entry, and if so, would qualify for separate inclusion in this template, too.
I defer in both these recommended edits to those who are already editing this template and topic, and leave you colleagues to consider and implement these suggestions.
Pandelver (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Pansexuality is already listed, under "Non-binary categories". It looks like it was added on 30 September 2012 here. Trankuility (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, pansexuality is already on the template. The reason that it is not listed as a sexual orientation is because the vast majority of scholars do not see it as a sexual orientation, but rather, if they mention it all, as a sexual identity that indicates bisexuality. No authoritative sources on sexual orientation label pansexuality as a sexual orientation, and the vast majority of those sources don't even mention it. See Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Shouldn't the other two sexualities be added back? and Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 8, where this matter has been discussed extensively and that WP:Consensus is to not list it on the template as a sexual orientation. At this point in time, it is WP:Fringe to call pansexuality a sexual orientation. Also see the debate about pansexuality vs. bisexuality in the Pansexuality article, which clarifies things even further; some people see pansexuality as distinct from bisexuality; some people do not see it as distinct from bisexuality. This is also clear by the debates at Talk:Pansexuality; a WP:Permalink is here. This bisexuality vs. pansexuality argument is one of the biggest consistent issues I have dealt with at Misplaced Pages. As for why asexuality is listed as a sexual orientation, despite there being debate among scholars as to whether or not it is a sexual orientation, see Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Zoosexuality and Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 7#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? (my view of a WP:Primary source was somewhat faulty back then, though). WP:Consensus has been to leave it listed as a sexual orientation. Unlike with pansexuality, scholars are in a significant debate about whether or not to call asexuality a sexual orientation. With pansexuality, again, they usually don't mention it, or they define it as an aspect of bisexuality...either by calling it bisexuality or by directly calling it an aspect of bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)