Template talk:Sexual orientation

Edit request from 46.113.248.37, 22 May 2011

Please add "pansexuality" back to the orientations section because somebody deleted it. Wikipedia is neutral and should not discriminate pansexuals. Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pansexuality

46.113.248.37 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: What should and should not be included in this template has been extensively discussed already. Please familiarise yourself with the talk page archives linked above, and if you have anything new to add, feel free to discuss further here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Androphilia and gynephilia

I propose we add Androphilia and gynephilia under Gender-based alternative concepts, which is marked as the place to list "Gender-based systems such as in non-westernized and pre-westernized societies." This terminology is used in published work for describing non-Western societies like the Samoan fa'afafine. Jokestress (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks since I made this proposal. I will wait another day or so, then I will add it to the template. Jokestress (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and heterosexuality is pretty much already those two things. For example: A gay is an androphile and a female heterosexual is also an androphile. I rater see those listed as sexual preferences page or something similar.Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

I feel that this template is incomplete without the inclusion of zoosexuality. There is growing evidence that what has been referred to as "zoophilia" (i.e. a paraphilia) is actually a distinct sexual orientation. Paraphilias tend to refer to non-living objects, whereas zoosexuality refers to living, sentient beings. So although zoosexuality is technically still listed as a paraphilia, its status as a paraphilia is crumbling. In this link, it describes how Beetz believes that zoophilia should be referred to as "zoosexuality". Consider also this link, which describes how zoophilia is being re-classified.

Zoosexuality is unique among paraphilias in that it involves sentient/living beings and not non-living objects; whereas paraphilias such as pedophilia tend to focus on aspects of something (i.e. one's age), zoosexuality does not focus on an aspect of something -- it is simply the sexual attraction to other species. And considering that there are many subcategories of it (cynosexuality, equinosexuality, etc.) it seems only fair to have at least some mention of zoosexuality somewhere on the template. Because of zoosexuality's unusual status which sets it apart from normal paraphilias, its inclusion in the template would not cause a "slippery slope" effect (the template would not begin to fill with up with paraphilias).

By the way, I am in agreement with Jokestress about the Adnrophilia/gynephilia issue, and I agree with the above request concerning pansexuality. What pansexuality, zoosexuality and gynephilia all have in common is that they do not focus on an aspect of something, therefore they should be included. Plateau99 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To be listed as a sexual orientation, it should first be a sexual orientation, meaning recognized in the mental health field as one. To my knowledge (and I skimmed one reference you provided (except for pages not displayed by Google) and the other appears to be an abstract), neither zoosexuality nor pansexuality is a sexual orientation. If you know of adequate sourcing that establishes either as a sexual orientation, please post accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Levinson. I've watched this template over the years and there's a tendency for people to throw in all sort of stuff, and I tend to be skeptical of that. Plateau99's argument is rational and maybe its true, but still just his opinion, I think. (There's also the issue of notability; I'd argue that an entry that might otherwise be allowable shouldn't be included if it applies to a vanishingly small population. That's arguable, and whether it applies here I don't know.) Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the zoosexual population is actually quite large and isn't "vanishingly small": after all, there are about 900,000 people on the zoosexual website known as "beastforum.com". The only reason the zoosexual population seems small is because bestiality is taboo and nobody discusses it in public. Plateau99 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

900,000? Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at Talk:Sexual orientation, see the Other sexual orientations must be mention too discussion for why we do not list zoophilia as a sexual orientation. Nick went over this extensively in that debate. And as I myself recently stated: "Most zoosexuals are sexually attracted to humans. And "sexual orientation" is not only mostly studied in the context of humans, but is usually designated to humans. There is significant disagreement among researchers about applying it to non-human animals. If a person is only sexually attracted to non-human animals (provide a source for that because I've never seen it reliably reported), that would not be considered a legitimate sexual orientation by researchers. They would label that a paraphilia and/or a mental disorder (notice I stated "or," not that it would definitively be labeled the latter). The lead [of the Sexual orientation article] is quite clear on what is a sexual orientation, and that authoritative American Psychological Association source is stricter, saying "men and women," not "males and females." And that is exactly what I mean about the term usually applying to humans. Researchers do not designate zoosexuality as a sexual orientation."

But regarding pansexuality? Giving pansexuality a listing is complicated, because to most people...it is already covered by bisexuality. It's why we mention it in the lead of the Bisexuality article, and why bisexuality is mentioned in the Pansexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual orientation implies fairly wide social acceptance (not necessarily majoritarian but still substantial) in contrast to paraphilia etc., the latter suggesting a need for treatment that the former does not suggest, so that an appropriate source for a determination of a list of sexual orientations would be a major psychology organization. I've recently heard of another study that, to me, points in the direction that sexual orientation relies on social acceptance: that the public's acceptance of homosexuality goes up because many lesbian/gay couples now raise children. I don't think we're on the verge of that discussion regarding zoosexuality.

On pansexuality as differing from bisexuality in the realm of sexual orientation, if that's based on there being human genders other than the two generally recognized, I don't think the major psychology organizations agree on that premise, thus pansexuality would imply the existence of something generally denied and thus isn't likely to be recognized as a sexual orientation.

The appropriate people to convince about the existence of a sexual orientation are major psychology organizations. Wikipedia is not a lobbyist. You may contact psychology organizations directly.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To add on to what Nick stated, I also want to point out, like another editor did on the Sexual orientation talk page, that sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction. And I already made clear that such attraction is usually made in the context of "humans being attracted to humans" (plenty of researchers would rather not prescribe non-human animals with a sexual orientation, and certainly not people being attracted to them as "a sexual orientation"). Therefore, paraphilias are distinct because they are covering sexual attractions not simply based on "whether this is a male/man or female/woman." With pedophilia, for example, which has been compared to a sexual orientation by experts, defining it is not about whether the child is a boy or a girl... Whether or not the child is a boy or a girl is about sexual orientation, and, as such, there are heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles. Therefore, defining pedophilia is about the sexual preference -- whether or not it's a prepubescent child or an adult.

I also want to point out that how large or small the population is for a particular "sexual direction" is not what gets something labeled a sexual orientation. The incidence of asexuality is commonly reported as 1%, and yet it is still getting recognition as a sexual orientation by researchers. While zoophilia, which there is clearly a larger incidence of, is not. This no doubt also stems from what Nick stated above about social acceptance. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done extensive research about this topic, so allow me to point out some mistakes in your comments and correct them before I state my opinion.

@Plateau99

1-You mention that zoophilia is a synonym of zoosexuality. That is kinda incorrect, Zoophiles (the psychological term) can refer to zoosexuals or to bestialists.

2-You mention that zoophilia is "special" because we are attracted to living being which makes this paraphilia a sexuality. That is incorrect, It is irrelevant if a paraphilias refer to living being or objects, because there is a sexual orientations for objects, there is no rule that a sexual orientation must only be for living beings, objectum sexuality fits the diagnosis of what is a sexual orientation. Objectum sexuality, zoosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, all of them fir the sexual orientations diagnosis and the paraphilia diagnosis.

3-Is incorrect to think that zoosexuality is not unique, homosexuality is also a paraphilia that involves sentient beings.

4-Pansexuality is not a sexual orientation, it is instead a sexual preference (or lack of sexual preferences) pansexuality is a ramification of bisexuality and so, it should NOT be listed as a sexual orientation.

@Nick Levinson

1-There are 3 to 5 recent studies (made by people with PH.Ds in sexology and psychology) that reached the conclusion that zoosexuality is a valid sexual orientation. There are ZERO studies that have reach the conclusion that zoosexuality is NOT a sexual orientation. Evidence is against your opinion, if you have evidence that zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation, please provide it.

2-"Sexual orientation implies fairly wide social acceptance"←That is 100% FALSE, homosexuality was not socially accepted 2000 years ago and was punished with death in all the world and it was a sexual orientation 2000 years ago. Social acceptance has nothing to do with sexual orientations. If it fits the diagnosis of sexual orientation, it means that it is a sexual orientation, doesn't matter if 99.9% of the world don't accept it as a sexual orientation, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out weighs personal ignorant/bias opinion of the masses.

@Herostratus

1-The amount of homosexuals and zoosexuals in the human population is estimated to be some where between 10% and 5%, they both share decent notability. By the way it is a "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" to say that it doesn't have enough notability and that it should not be added for that reason. Imagine if wikipedia existed 100 years ago and people where trying to add homosexuality to this template and people where saying "sorry, homosexuality has not enough notability to be added" that would mean homosexuality would have never pick up notability because wikipedia and other sites do not let it pick notability.

@Flyer22

1-"sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction"←Sexual orientation is based on the species you are attracted, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, all of them are attracted to humans. Being attracted to an homosapines is the sexual orientation. Being attracted to the same gender or opposite gender is a ramification of the sexual orientation know as sexual preferences. For example, heterosexuals have a sexual orientation for humans where their sexual preference is the opposite sex. A gay pedophile had a sexual orientation for humans where their sexual preference is same gender and young age. Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation by itself, inside of it there are preferences for same gender, opposite gender, young age, different colors, hairs looks, different species, etc.

2-Asexuality is not a sexual orientation, it is the lack of a sexual orientation, that can't be sexual orientation, it doesn't fit the definition of sexual orientation. For example, an apple is a fruit, an orange is a fruit, you can't say that the lack of fruits in a bowl is a fruit. There is a definition of sexual orientation, what ever fits that definition becomes a sexual orientation, if it doesn't fit the definition, it can't be a sexual orientation, asexuality does not fit the definition of sexual orientation. Zoosexuality and objectum sexuality does fit that definition.

3-"The incidence of asexuality is commonly reported as 1%, and yet it is still getting recognition as a sexual orientation by researchers."←I dare you to name one study that mentions asexuality as a sexual orientation. I can name 3 studies that mentions zoosexuality as a sexual orientation.

Now to state what I think.

There are 3 or more studies that have reach the conclusion that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, they are not peer reviewed yet as they are new studies. But I don't see why this should be a reason to not add the information on wikipedia, I mean, you don't need a peer review study telling you that water is wet and that fire burns. IF you read the the studies about zoosexuality, is clear there is no bias, zoosexuality is a real sexual orientation, you don't need a major psychologist institutions to tell you that, just like you don't need a need major psychologist institutions to tell you that homosexuality is a sexual orientation 50 or 100 or 2000 years ago. Why not use critical thinking? Homosexuality was a sexual orientation 2000 years in the past, even if 100% of the world said it was not. Same it is with zoosexuality, evidence is clear that it is a sexual orientation from reading those studies, you don't need the consensus of major psychologist institutions or a peer review to see the obvious. Why it has to be so hard to ass TABOO information to wikipedia? Zoosexuality and objectum sexuality should be added as sexual orientation, because there is no evidence that they are not and there is evidence that they are. IF evidence says it is a sexual orientation and there is no evidence to say it is not, why can't zoosexuality or even objectum sexuality be added?Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alusky, you may well have studied the subject more than I have. Please cite the 3–5 studies (or if already cited in Wikimedia tell us where).

Sexual orientation is characterized by, inter alia, whether the sexuality is enduring in someone and whether individuals have a community (thus the relationship to social acceptance). With reference to people two millennia ago, that raises the question of how we know whose sexuality was enduring and whether they shared a sexual community. If by the Bible, a question is whether that's a reliable source for such facts of secular humanity.

For a given sexuality, a sexual orientation can coexist with opposition entailing societally-sponsored capital punishment. Reportedly, in the U.S. (where homosexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation), homeless adolescents in one U.S. city are superproportionately homosexual because their families threw them out of their homes (perhaps on a parental thesis that "no kid of mine is a faggot") and homeless communities welcomed them. But that does not mean that a sexuality necessarily has a corresponding sexual orientation.

As far as I know, at most only four sexualities are recognized as sexual orientations, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality (each of which is disputed as a sexual orientation but that is irrelevant to adding zoosexuality as a sexual orientation). Studies may show that people living other sexualities are psychologically well-adjusted, nondepressed, and so on, and such studies, if peer-reviewed and replicated, are probably prerequisite to recognition of the respective sexualities as sexual orientations, but are not sufficient.

Which sexual orientations, if any, existed in the distant past is a question for historians, archaeologists, and other scholars in reportable sources. It's possible, for example, that a sexual orientation used to exist and then was replaced by a taboo such that the sexual orientation no longer existed.

Your definition of sexual orientation as being principally about the species to which one is attracted, so that homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc. are merely preferences within that, runs counter to what the American Psychological Association and most other sources I've seen say. If you have a source for that definition, please cite it.

Not only don't we need a study saying that water is wet, we don't generally need any source. But that's because no one is likely to challenge that, whereas zoosexuality being a sexual orientation is almost certain to be challenged, and for that the sourcing must meet Wikipedia's standards. Peer review and replication are appropriate, as is acceptance by a national organization in an appropriate field of scholarship. There are lots of obvious facts that only some of us know and which we'd like to add, but which Wikipedia doesn't welcome. Without standards, Wikipedia would be a mess that few people would visit.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alusky, I don't see you pointing out any mistakes in my comments and correcting them, and I'm not even about to attempt to reply to everything you stated. I will say that you should stop using the homosexuality argument. That's the same argument that pedophiles use for wanting pedophilia recognized as a sexual orientation. It does not matter that homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. The fact is...it has been considered a valid sexual orientation for many years now, and every researcher recognizes it as one. So it goes to reason that if zoosexuality was considered a sexual orientation, then it would be recognized as a sexual orientation by researchers in this day and age. It is not, however. Not by most or even half. Just one sexologist calls it a sexual orientation in the Zoophilia article, and that is not even cited except by text. Most researchers classify it as a paraphilia. Just like most other sexual practices/preferences that are considered "abnormal" are classified as paraphilias. And make no mistake about it, zoosexuality is considered abnormal. I stand by my statement that "sexual orientation is largely based on biological sex/gender attraction." Your definition that "sexual orientation is based on the species you are attracted to," as if it is not about biological sex/gender, directly conflicts with the reliable sources found in the Sexual orientation article. Going by your definition, there would be a variety of attractions designated under "sexual orientations" based on the type of species a person is attracted to, including plant species. That is not how sexual orientation is defined. If it were, then animals would also typically be assigned a sexual orientation. They, however, are not. And your comparison to pedophilia? No, whether or not the child is a boy or a girl is the sexual orientation, which is why there are heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual pedophiles. The sexual preference is about the child being prepubescent. Pedophilia is "the sexual preference for prepubescent children," not "a sexual orientation that describes a sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

You can say asexuality is not a sexual orientation all you want, but it has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. Not being sexually attracted to a person does not make it any less of a sexual orientation. It has to do with sexual intimacy and biological sex/gender attraction just like the other sexual orientations do; it is an orientation that encompasses little to no sexual attraction. "Sexual" is put in front of "orientation" because it has to do with a sexual direction. Asexuality deals with a sexual direction that is recognized as a sexual orientation. It also deals with romantic aspects just like the other sexual orientations. A lot of people consider asexuality abnormal, yes, but it is still recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community. There is nothing you can do about that.

Your repeated effort to get zoosexuality deemed a sexual orientation in the main article and template is both tiring and unproductive. There are no peer-reviewed sources to back you up on it being a legitimate sexual orientation. Where is there evidence that zoosexuality is a valid sexual orientation, especially since most zoosexuals have a sexual preference for humans? There being no evidence suggesting that it is not a sexual orientation is irrelevant. There is no evidence that being sexually attracted to stuffed animals is not a sexual orientation either. Doesn't mean it should be added as a sexual orientation. I'm going to go ahead and ask a sexologist-editor to weigh in on this, so that it can hopefully be put to rest. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for years, and I can say with assuredness that no matter what you do, this issue will likely never be put to rest. I don't know if it's the same person incarnating in different usernames, or different people, but there always seems to be someone pushing this argument. is it an effort to raise zoophilia to a more accepted status? an effort to lower conventional orientations to the level of paraphilia? who knows…

As best I understand it, an 'orientation' refers to a mutual bonding preference more than a sexual preference: It refers to the kind of person you want to have a mutual intimate relationship with. Animals and children and broccoli are excluded because animals and children and broccoli are not considered to be capable of establishing a 'mutual' relationship: no matter how much you love broccoli (or a child, or a dog) it cannot respond in the same way on the level of an equal, and so the relationship is always a power relationship rather than an intimacy relationship. That sexual power relationship is what qualifies it as a paraphilia. But that is not an argument that is going to satisfy a paraphiliac, because paraphiliacs will always insist that the object of their affections returns their affections, no matter how ludicrous that assertion might be. We're just going to have to rest on the literature here, which narrowly defines orientation in terms of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality, and stifle the debates until the literature changes. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson

•Studies: "Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002" and "Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Bestiality and Zoophilia (2005)" are the two studies I have read that support that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, I'm not sure if there are more studies to support it as I haven't read those (they cost lots of money to read that I don't have) I'm a zoosexual and is annoying when people say that I don't exist. Have you read those studies?

•Inter alia? Zoosexuality is enduring and he majority have it since puberty and last for life, there is also a zoosexual community, specially in the Internet where it is safer to make friends and chat to later meet people in real life once you trust that they don't have bad intentions. By the way, it is irrelevant if a community exist or not, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless of that factor.

•If a person behabior fits the definition of sexual orientation, then that person has a sexual orientation, period.

•Well-adjusted, non-depressed, are irrelevant factors, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless of those factor. A bad adjusted depressed homosexual that rapes people is still an homosexual. If an reliable studied proves with evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, then that information should be allowed to be used for wikipedia.

•Sexual orientations don't stop being sexual orientations just because they become taboo. A sexual orientation can be a taboo and a sexual orientation at the same time. (Homosexuality was and still is Taboo, it was Taboo to 99.9% of people 2000 years ago and it still was a sexual orientation 2000 years ago, a sexual orientation is a sexual orientation regardless if it is taboo or not)

•Ignore my personal research that homosexuality and heterosexuality are just sexual preferences, I'm not interested in that topic for now.

•Those studies that I mentioned, are not peer review, but I wonder, where exactly are you reading that all information MUST be peer review to be used on wikipedia? Also, no major organization has "Un-Acepted" Beetz and Miletski studies as bias, fake or craziness, the APA paraphilia group that is working on the new DSM-5 even read their works and evaluate it as to see if they need to change anything about zoophilia in the new DSM-5, do you think they would have done that if their studies where unreliable? I been looking on wikipedia and I found this: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan."←Reading that at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

•Also: "The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source" as said here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

•And what counts as a reliable source is: "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ←My point is, by those standard, you can add change or add new information if the source is reliable, even if it is not a peer-reviewed publications (though that makes it even more reliable)

•Miletski study was her requirement for her PhD, they are published online and in book and cited in many places (nobody has disproved her study as bias, fake, craziness) her work was also check by the people that check her thesis (Probably with Beetz studie, it as similar) doesn't that that means that her work is reliable by wikipedia standards? APA also read her studie and didn't said it was unreliable, they took it seriously. And his work is simple, zoosexuality fits the definition of sexual orientation, so it must be a sexual orientation, you don't need to be a genius to understand that.

@Flyer22

•Is not the same argument, pedophilia is a sexual preference that derivatives from homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality so it is not a sexual orientation. If we use my personal research "that goes against the scientific consensus" a gay pedophile has a sexual orientation for humans, with a sexual preference for same sex, with a sexual preference inside of that for ages 10 to 5.

•It does matter that homosexuality was not recognized as a sexual orientation and considered a disorder. Because now with the new studies it was proven that it is a sexual orientation and rarely a sexual disorder. In the last 10 years, people have done research proving that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and not always a sexual disorder, it is not yet recognizance by everybody as the studies are new and people think it is social suicide to do talk or do studies about zoosexuality.

•Have you read Miletski or Beetz study? If 99.9% of the world say is not a sexual orientation, but evidence says it is, then the 99.9% of people opinion is irrelevant. It doesn't mater if only one person or many has used the word zoosexual, what matter is what the evidence says.

•Yes, zoosexuality is a paraphilia and so it is homosexuality (they are both abnormal) There is no rule that says that you can't be a sexual orientation and a paraphilia at the same time.

•True, I had totally forgotten about Dendrosexuals/Dendrophiles, plants would be the main sexual orientation, sub-species of plants would be preferences. But again, this is my persona research (supported only by my critical thinking and from reading many stuff about sexuality) that "research" goes against the current scientific consensus so feel free to ignore it if you want.

•Where you read that any information added to wikipedia must be peer reviewed? I believe that the majority of wikipedia information is not peer reviewed. I think as long as the source is reliable it can be added to wikipedia. Correct?

•There is no rule that a human can't have 2 sexual orientations or more. This is certainly possible with zoosexuals who are also attracted to humans (who are also an animal species)

•"There is no evidence that being sexually attracted to stuffed animals is not a sexual orientation either. Doesn't mean it should be added as a sexual orientation?"←There is evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation, that is why people is complaining that zoosexuality should be mentioned on wikipedia.

@Ludwigs2

•Yes, it is an effort to raise the awareness of zoosexuality and some paraphilias are sexual orientations so I don't know what you mean by that. Anyways, at least me, I use evidence to support my claims, don't now about what previous zoosexuals may have done in the past on wikipedia pages.

•Mutual relationships are not part of what makes something a sexual orientation, an homosexual is still a sexual orientation even if he stays virgin and never has a relationship of any kind with anyone, same goes for zoosexuals, objectosexuals, dendrosexuals.

•"That sexual power relationship is what qualifies it as a paraphilia."←And I can see you don't know NOTHING about paraphilias. "A paraphilia is characterized by sexual arousal to unconventional stimuli that are not considered to be part of normal sexual arousal patterns. Psychiatric Dictionary, Seventh Edition, by Robert Jean Campbell, M.D.; Oxford University Press; New York; 1996." Power relationships has nothing to do with something being a paraphilia or not. Though a power relationship does has something to do with a paraphilia becoming a paraphilic disorder.

•"But that is not an argument that is going to satisfy a paraphiliac, because paraphiliacs will always insist that the object of their affections returns their affections"←First, that is a Hasty generalization, second, if you are talking about pedophilia and zoophilia, animals and children can actually return affection.

•Why don't you try to do critical thinking? What is the definition of sexual orientation? What has bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality in common? Are those things in common shared by zoosexual? The studies I mention have reach the conclusion that zoosexuals fit the definition of sexual orientation, that we share the same things with other sexual origination.

•I ask you too, have you read those studies? How you know zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation if you haven't disproven the studies that says it is?

Alusky (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You told Nick, "I'm a zoosexual and is annoying when people say that I don't exist." Well, duh. Pretty obvious that you are a zoosexual. But no one has said you don't exist. Saying zoosexuality is not recognized as a valid sexual orientation is not saying you don't exist. It is stating a fact, and reiterating that zoosexuality exists as a paraphilia/sexuality. And by the way, some asexuals would say you are doing the same thing to them -- denying that they exist by saying asexuality is not a sexual orientation.

You mentioned pedophilia to make a point about sexual orientation. I mentioned pedophilia to make a point about sexual orientation. The only difference is...I am right. No, we are not going by "[your] personal research."

You say "In the last 10 years, people have done research proving that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and not always a sexual disorder"? Really? Where is this research? Yes, I have read some of Miletski's beliefs, and that is just one researcher's opinion. You keep talking about this "evidence" that isn't even recognized by the mainstream psychological community. That is what matters -- that large scale recognition. The same way that it mattered for homosexuality, since you like to cite homosexuality so much. It does matter if only one person claims it to be a sexual orientation. Wanting zoosexuality labeled a sexual orientation because of what these two researchers say is hardly any different than researchers who have suggested that pedophilia is very similar to or is a type of sexual orientation. We are not going to take that research to then assert in the template and article that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, as though this is an acceptable conclusion by most researchers and other such scholars.

Calling homosexuality a paraphilia and abnormal goes against everything the mainstream psychological community has to say about it. And the more you say it, the more you lose credibility with me. Because, as someone who acts as well-versed in these topics as you do, you should know that homosexuality is no longer considered paraphilic or abnormal by experts in this field (not by most of them anyway). That is why it was taken out of the DSM. And with as much as you cite that fact, one would think you wouldn't still be asserting "Yeah, but it's still abnormal." Your belief that "There is no rule that says that you can't be a sexual orientation and a paraphilia at the same time."? Just doesn't hold up.

"Peer-reviewed" asserts non-original research and/or consensus on the part of the researcher's findings. And that is extremely important when deeming something a sexual orientation. Otherwise, a bunch of things would be listed as a sexual orientation in the main article and template...all because one researcher has claimed that it is. Peer-reviewed sources are always supposed to be the main sources one should use for mental health, physical health, and sexual orientation topics. If you ask any regular editor at WP:MEDS or WP:PSYCHOLOGY, that is what they'd say. The Peer review article explains why peer review is so important.

"There is no rule that a human can't have 2 sexual orientations or more."? That is... I'll just say I disagree. The only "two sexual orientations" aspect I'd agree with is bisexuality (heterosexuality and homosexuality rolled up into one).

"There is evidence that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation." No, there are suggestions/opinions that it is one, which is why the people complaining that zoosexuality should be mentioned as a sexual orientation on Wikipedia have provided no true evidence. Citing Miletski is not evidence, for the reasons I stated above. You make it sound like a bunch of people have been at Wikipedia campaigning for zoosexuality to be deemed a sexual orientation. It has only been a select few (you included). And I have no doubt that one or all of you are the same person under a different user name. The ones complaining only want zoosexuality recognized as a sexual orientation for the same reasons that Ludwigs2 stated above. You said to Ludwigs2, "How you know zoosexuality is not a sexual orientation if you haven't disproven the studies that says it is?" That is absurd reasoning. One does not have to disprove a researcher's assertion that something is a sexual orientation in order for it to not be considered one.

As I stated on my talk page: Sexual orientation is not only about sexual attraction but romantic attraction as well. Most asexuals have romantic attractions to whichever sex/gender. You want studies calling asexuality a sexual orientation? There is a source in the Sexual orientation article (first located in the lead) that we use to assert that asexuality has recently been recognized as a sexual orientation based on studies. And there are more in the Asexuality article, some of which show asexuality was recognized as a sexual orientation before "recently." Though asexuality has been studied far less than the other sexual orientations (heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), when researchers do discuss it...they almost always designate it under "sexual orientation"...either by their own definition or by the participants' (see page 349). Contrast that to zoosexuality, which is almost always designated under "paraphilia," no matter if the individual were to describe it as a sexual orientation. All of this is what I mean by "has been recognized as a sexual orientation by the psychological community."

Do not continue this discussion at my talk page. I do not want to debate with you your beliefs about sexual orientation and sexuality, and do not need to discuss this with you in three different places (here, the article talk page, and my talk page). The bottom line is...you have not given us ample reason to list zoosexuality as a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said: not going to go away no matter what we do… Alusky, you prove my point precisely where you say "Mutual relationships are not part of what makes something a sexual orientation"; that shows that you are thinking in purely sexual terms (i.e., in terms of sexual preferences or paraphilias), rather than in terms of the more complex relationship issues involved in an orientation. At any rate, the place to debate this is not here on the template. make the argument for the editors on the sexual orientation page: if you can get the material added in over there, we'll be forced to update the template. Good luck! --Ludwigs2 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The most he can get in the main article is to have it mentioned in one of the sections that two researchers have suggested that zoosexuality is a sexual orientation; it certainly wouldn't mean that the template should be updated, per everything stated against it above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I just think it's pointless to have the argument here, since there is where any changes would need to happen.--Ludwigs2 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with moving the discussion to Talk:Sexual orientation and plan to post there shortly. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other two sexualities be added back?

Polysexuality and Pansexuality aren't listed. I've found that odd since people do consider them sexual orientations, especially those who identify as them. We have Asexual but why not Polysexual and Pansexual? I've checked the previous archives and it seems they were taken out due to the page not saying they're orientations; I find both pages to be stubs though. There must be some research on either one, like there is for Asexuality. Macintosh Grapes (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you find good sourcing that either one is a sexual orientation, go right ahead and add it to either article and then to this template. Note that a sexuality and a sexual orientation are not the same phenomenon, and that the latter is usually by professional agreement on premises. Both are already covered by bisexuality or rely on an acceptance of there being three or more human genders, on which point there is not much professional agreement, but please go ahead with your research in case others are wrong. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Polysexuality and pansexuality are sexual preferences, they are not sexual orientations.Alusky (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Its similar how people don'T consider zoo sexuality an orientation. DoctorHver (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation?

I looked through the articles and don't see reliable independent sources supporting that claim. At best, it seems to be a fringe opinion. Both Asexuality and sexual orientation mention that it is, but in both articles it is supported by one primary source, a research study published in 2004 that makes a vague claim. No sources fulfilling the requirements of reliable sources for medical articles are used. I would just like to see the evidence. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated to MathewTownsend at Talk:Asexuality#"Sexual orientation" in hatnote, I'm not seeing how the Contemporary Sexuality source ("Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?") is a primary source. Primary sources are sources such as AVEN. The Contemporary Sexuality source features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation. It is not a primary source, and neither is the Prause source. There is also the "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality" source by Bogaert. All of these sources now back the line in the Sexual orientation article that says: though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category. They show that asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation category by some researchers. That is all these sources are supporting in the Asexuality article: That asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers. The lead says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not.", not "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." I only started [that section at Talk:Asexuality] because I find it odd not to mention "sexual orientation" in the hatnote when asexuality is already listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and template. [The Asexuality article] is not saying that it is definitively a sexual orientation [and neither is the Sexual orientation article]...except for the template that is listed [t]here (and the category at the bottom of the article, if you count that). Yes, sexual orientation is "an attraction to another person." Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction. This is why it is debated as a sexual orientation by researchers. I don't see the Sexual orientation article contradicting asexuality. I see it as mainly discussing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. And this is because of what I just stated above -- the debate, which is discussed in the Sexual orientation and etiology section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. Please see WP:MEDRS. When it comes to research articles, a primary source is an individual study or research endevor conducted by an individual researcher or group of researchers. It presents raw data, and analyzes it, then presents original conclusions. Other primary sources are opinion pieces where an author expresses opinions but doesn't provide a review of the literature showing the current findings in the field. A secondary source is a review article that summarizes the current research in the field. It examines many studies are comes to conclusions based on an analysis of many studies, based on what the majority of studies support. One study can be way off base. One author's opinions can be way off base. If used at all in an article, it must be supported by secondary sources. It is just one researcher's findings or one author's opinions. That is why they are not reliable sources. Something like AVEN is just a self-published source and really can't be used at all, except to cite uncontroversial facts about AVEN itself and not considered a reliable source for any other information. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend, I am already aware of WP:MEDRS. I would have to be, working on articles such as these. In any case, the sources I added are supporting the line in the Sexual orientation article that asexuality is starting to be recognized as a fourth sexual orientation category, and the line in the Asexuality article that some researchers consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation. I also realize that you must have been originally talking about this Bogaert source when you started talking about primary sources. My main point is that you are focusing on one finding. I am not speaking of findings. I am speaking of what is debated among researchers, backed by reliable sources. Does the Asexuality article say that asexuality is definitively a sexual orientation? No. It says that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers. Are you saying that this cannot be mentioned and thoroughly investigated in the Asexuality article? If so, I do not see why...since this debate is supported by reliable sources. And, yes, AVEN counts as WP:PRIMARY; it's only used in this article for things that primary sources are okay for. AVEN itself is also cited in reliable sources, so its article can most definitely be expanded beyond its own sources. I am bringing editors in from WP:MED to weigh in on this matter, since they know better than anyone when it comes to topics about sourcing such as this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea to bring in editors from WP:MED. I have no opinion one way or another whether Asexual should be included as a sexual orientation. I was only going on the sources provided. Just to let you know that I am neutral on the subject, though what the American Psychology Association thinks does sway me a little but not completely. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Mathew. I see and I do applaud you for wanting to make sure Wikipedia is accurate on these things. Like I stated, in the GA review...I briefly questioned asexuality being included in this template since asexuality is not yet considered a sexual orientation among most researchers (and we don't know if it ever will be). But I figured general consensus is that it should be included because some researchers consider it one, and, when we describe sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article, are we not going to mention that some people are sexually attracted to neither sex (not point to the Asexuality article)? We'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some researchers differ on how many sexual orientations they count because they use counts for different purposes. A study on hormonal determination counted only two sexual orientations because only two were relevant, whereas psychologists and public policy analysts may not be willing to be limited to two. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great point! Very true. So determining what is subsumed under sexual orientation depends on the researcher's purpose. One shoe doesn't fit all here. Perhaps a suggestion that when adding researcher's point of view on the number of sexual orientations, a mention of the researcher's reason for employing categories of sexual orientation in the study is in order. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not such a great point, actually. Individual researchers may make divergent assertions, but there's always a standard for the discipline and that's what we should be reaching for. The problem with asexuality is that it is unclarified. unlike active sexuality - which is fairly well (if loosely) categorized as orientation, preference, paraphilia, etc. - psychologists still deal with asexuality on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not the source we have is sufficient to include it in the list on a pro-tem basis is debatable (I tend to think not, personally, but I haven't looked into it deeply), but it hasn't been specifically included of excluded, and it's not really a hot-topic political issue the active sexuality always is. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So is it a good idea to include it in this template? It is included now. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> I'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why I basically feel that it's best that we include asexuality in the template: There are some individuals who say they feel no sexual attraction to either sex, and researchers have created a category for these individuals as early as Alfred Kinsey, per the Kinsey scale. Asexuality is rare, which is why it hasn't received as much attention and has only recently started to receive more attention in the last few years. When researchers encounter asexuals during their research or when seeking out this group specifically, they are more so inclined to identify them as asexual or let them identify themselves that way...as seen in this Prause source (see page 347 for an example). Are we just going to have the template state that people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, or both, when there is a group that is attracted to neither? If asexuality is not a sexual orientation, then what is it? Just an aspect of sexuality, a sexual disorder? I believe the general consensus is that asexuality is not a disorder, but I'm not sure. The point is...even though researchers are still debating this, they have acknowledged asexuality as that box grouping people who feel little to no sexual attraction, and some of them have termed it a sexual orientation. This fourth category exists in research fields, as shown by the sources I have provided above. Having asexuality in the template isn't like having pansexuality, polysexuality or zoosexuality there. Pansexuality and polysexuality are subsumed under bisexuality by researchers, because they are more about sexual/romantic attractions to more than one gender/gender identity. And zoosexuality isn't about sexual attraction to either sex, but rather about sexual attraction to non-human animals, and is classified as a paraphilia.

I have also posted a note about this discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation to hopefully get some more opinions (hopefully, not from those proposing that zoosexuality should be added to the template as well). WP:MED is currently ignoring this discussion (as they often do when it concerns sexual topics), as though this is not a medical/health issue. Like I stated there, "asexuality is not just a sexology topic. Like all sexual orientations and sexualities, it has to do with mental and sexual health... Consensus on sexual orientation and sexualities are made by both the psychological and medical community, and the two communities greatly overlap." But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates are, I think, allowed wider leeway than articles in what to include, specifically because their space is short for each entry, as is also true for lists and indexes. Typically, the reader of a templated list goes to an article to see how relevant it is to their question. Omission prevents that. Thus, in a marginal case, inclusion is better. Pansexuality is not marginal and zoosexuality is even farther.

On counts used by researchers, in my limited reading (not a fair cross-section of expertise), in research articles and to some extent in textbooks (less so in lay books), most researchers do not explain the background of other researchers' determinations that are not central to their own investigations. They rely on others' conclusions, but don't explore their bases. Thus, in this context, they take a count as a given and proceed from there. That different researchers rely on different counts for different purposes, especially when they're from different fields, is usually not of much concern to any of them in print unless they decide to challenge each others' work.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides that, if it's not in the template...it should also be questionable to describe it as one of the sexual orientation categories in the Sexual orientation article. If we aren't going to say heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual...and asexual in the template, why should we say so in the lead and lower body of the article on this? Sigh. I vote for inclusion regarding asexuality, per what I stated above, and don't have much more to state on the subject than that. No doubt we'd get objections possibly every month or close to it if we were to remove it. Asexuals have been offended enough. I don't feel that we should add to that by essentially saying "You don't exist as a sexual orientation." If there was nothing to suggest that it is a sexual orientation, or if it were highly controversial to include it, then I'd see the point. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, templates have less leeway than articles, because they are prominently placed and provide no opportunity for careful NPOV balancing. If asexuality is not reasonably firmly established as an orientation, it should be removed; the only question in my mind is what its standing is. The problem (as I see it) is that no one has (so far as I know) set up diagnostic criteria: when a client presents asexuality, there's no established mechanism for distinguishing asexuality (as an orientation) from asexuality (as a symptom of something like depression or a personality disorder). Asexuality is generally treated as a symptom, but since it is a more-or-less innocuous issue, few clinicians will focus on it unless the client expresses anxiety over it (which someone who was truly asexual would not do).

What's really missing here is a comprehensive theory of human sexuality, but there's nothing to do about that...--Ludwigs2 00:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with including it in the template, in that we're not really saying anything more than "since you're interested in this article, you might also be interested in these other articles". Well, sort of. That's a simplification and we don't want to put anything in there, but the above conversation convinces me that it's probably valid in this case. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED.

The purpose of a template like this is to provide navigation aids to the reader, not to provide the definitive definition of any item. As such, the standard for inclusion is very similar to what you list under ==See also==. I don't believe that it's important to include Asexuality, but I also don't think that it's a problem to include it. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm popping back here to state that WhatamIdoing is with WP:MED (for those who don't know), not just someone watching that project page, and also commented here, where I replied. Thanks again, WhatamIdoing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To comment on WhatamIdoing's statement about the threshold for inclusion, I do feel that the definition is a part of it. By that, I mean that the Sexual orientation template serves as a template for recognized sexual orientations. And by "recognized," I mean acknowledged as such by various researchers. As stated, including pansexuality, polysexuality and/or zoosexuality would be different in this regard. The "Orientation" part of the Sexual orientation template is for including sexual orientations after all. If we were to include pansexuality or polysexuality, the "Gender-based alternative concepts" part of the template is where they would fit best/most accurately. Zoosexuality is a no for the reasons already gone over on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it a header template is not just a 'see also', but serves a purpose similar to an introduction or outline for the article. Just the way we would not use an entirely unrelated lead image for an article, the header template should not contain entirely unrelated material, and certainly should not be used to advance a cause that's not reflected in reliable sources. --Ludwigs2 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If template lists are more restrictive than articles because of NPOV risks, then we should rename this template to something like Sexual Orientation and Related Issues, so readers can find what they're looking for. (If I'm right that these lists may be more inclusive, then this is probably why.) My computer time is limited now, but sometime I'd like to look up the policy/guideline on narrower/wider inclusion. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Ludwigs, and that is what I was stressing. The template is certainly not for everything that is considered a sexual orientation. It must be supported by more than just a few researchers (and by "few," I mean the number that support zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, or anything close to that number). And I don't think WhatamIdoing was saying any unrelated (and no See also section should include an unrelated topic anyway) or any ole related issue should be listed in the template, but I wanted to comment on it because WhatamIdoing's comment could be taken that way. WhatamIdoing may want to clarify his/herself what he/she meant.

Nick, I wouldn't say that we need to rename the template. I mean, it is divided into different sections, which is why I pointed out the "Orientations" and "Gender-based alternative concepts" sections. Pansexuality and polysexuality could fit there if we wanted to compromise on those topics, just like androphilia and gynephilia are already listed there. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Debate about asexuality as a sexual orientation was also had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation. This debate concerns whether or not asexuality is a main sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the template being discussed

Changes to the template, whether to include or exclude Asexuality, is being discussed here. Consensus is needed. Someone963852 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is the result of the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Inclusion in sexual orientation template. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Species dysphoria

Should this be in the template? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Under what, WLU? Under the Gender-based alternative concepts category? It's not a sexual orientation, so I know that you don't mean the Orientations category. But although parallels have been drawn between it and gender identity disorder (GID), and some people with GID also experience it, it's not a gender issue. As you know, it's "the experience of dysphoria (depression, discontent), sometimes including dysmorphia (excessive concern over one's body image), associated with the feeling that one's body is of the wrong species." If you're saying that some people with these feelings also therefore have sexual attraction to non-human animals, I don't see why it should be on the template any more than zoophilia should be. And if it fits on any template, given its comparison to GID, then that's Template:Transgender sidebar. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the template to say. The page wasn't templated up or linked in any template, so I added it to {{Gender and sexual identities}}. I mostly brought it up because the page doesn't seem to be very well-traveled. If you don't think it's appropriate, I'm cool with that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's neither a gender nor a sexual identity. It's a form of dysmorphia. Removed. Jokestress (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pansexuality and polysexuality

I see the usual suspects are here claiming we can't include pansexuality and polysexuality, even though we have articles on both, because these sorts of descriptors for orientation do not fit into the binary system used in medical models. We have articles on each, they are distinct from bisexuality, and in fact are philosophically and semantically similar to other inclusive terms that don't make problematic assumptions about sex and gender. I have added both and recommend adding queer, questioning, and other terms used outside the rigid medical model. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, we should categorize these concepts under parallel constructions. "Alternative" is a term fraught with problems in the context of sexual orientation (e.g. "alternative lifestyle"), so I have made the first two categories similar. Jokestress (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If you are going to come here and make an argument, then refrain from your usual confrontational nonsense. I am not James Cantor, who you love to stalk and confront so much, and certainly won't tolerate such behavior in the least. I did not state that pansexuality and polysexuality cannot be listed; I stated that they cannot be listed as sexual orientations, per my statements here and here. No, they are not distinct from bisexuality and it is ridiculous to state that they are. The way that you are defining bisexuality as a two-sex/two-gender model is even contested, as is shown at Talk:Pansexuality; to some people, it means romantically/sexually attracted to two sexes (males and females) and genders (man and woman) only; to others, it means romantically/sexually attracted to all gender identities. But never are bisexuality and pansexuality completely distinguished from each other by authoritative sources on sexual orientation. All that stated, with the exception of changing "Orientations" to "Binary concepts," I do not mind you including pansexuality and poysexuality in the way that you have on the template. Others might. That's for you and them to debate. I do have a problem with this, which I reverted. These things should ideally be discussed on the talk page before being implemented. I will be contacting editors who have heavily weighed in on these matters in the past to weigh in now, and maybe even Cantor. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I know from your edits elsewhere you advocate that all of this is rigid, definitionally inflexible, and medicalized. Pansexuality and polysexuality are different conceptualizations of similar phenomena, which is why they merit separate articles. Lenius' seminal 2011 paper Bisexuals and BDSM makes it clear that bisexual and pansexual are distinct. See his 2011 follow up in the Journal of Bisexuality: A Reflection on “Bisexuals and BDSM: Bisexual People in a Pansexual Community”—Ten Years Later (and a Preview of the Next Sexual Revolution). The author predicts a soon-to-arrive post-GLBT world in which the terms gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender will have faded into irrelevance and in which there will be increased openness to and acceptance of BDSM/fetish/kink activities. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My comments on the Bisexuality and Pansexuality talk pages, as linked above, show that I do not advocate a rigid anything with regard to these topics. What I usually do is stick to authoritative sources when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Which is exactly why zoophilia has remained off this template. And I only state "usually" due to the asexuality debate that took place here last year/earlier this year. Pansexuality and polysexuality are not considered sexual orientations by any authoritative source on sexual orientation. Nor are they considered sexual orientations in the general literature on sexual orientation and sexuality. They are considered subsets of bisexuality. I already agreed to the way that you have these two concepts listed in the template, especially since I personally know people who reject being described as bisexual and feel that "pansexual" or "polysexual" best describes their sexuality. But we must generally follow the scientific consensus with regard to how sexual orientation is defined. They define it as heterosexual, homosexual...and bisexual. Even asexuality is mostly a part of that...seeing as most asexuals identify their sexuality as the romantic aspects of those sexual orientations. And from what I can see, and have seen for some time, polysexuality should not even have its own Wikipedia article.

To weigh in on this discussion, I have also contacted two editors who have heavily commented on matters regarding this template...but not this issue in particular. They are MathewTownsend and Someone963852. I also contacted an editor heavily involved in gender and transgender topics, Bonze blayk, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies...and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Journal of Bisexuality is a pretty authoritative source for whether bisexuality and pansexuality are distinct concepts. Pansexuality is an orientation used in response to the concept of distinct orientations. It's "a political, philosophical, and social movement within the organized SM/fetish communities that unites kinky people across orientation lines (i.e., gay, lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual, and transgendered together)." See Brame, Come Hither: A Commonsense Guide To Kinky Sex. The textbook definition Pansexuality is an orientation that specifically rejects the notion of two genders and indeed of specific orientations. See Cavendish, Sex and Society. According to one study of trans people, The two most common sexual orientation identities were pansexual and queer, followed by lesbian, bisexual, and straight/heterosexual. See Kuper, Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You cited one author from an authoritative bisexuality journal. He is not authoritative by himself. You are citing one or a few authors. Again, pansexuality and polysexuality "are not considered sexual orientations by any authoritative source on sexual orientation. Nor are they considered sexual orientations in the general literature on sexual orientation and sexuality. They are considered subsets of bisexuality." I am aware of the Cavendish source Sex and Society; I've used that source, which covers a lot of sexual topics, for other Wikipedia articles. But one or a few authors' definitions do not mean that we should go against scientific consensus, which is what we'd be doing in this case. Maybe asexuality should even be removed from the template as a sexual orientation, as I've considered before, since it is being debated as one among the experts in these fields. Furthermore, sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual orientation identity, although they largely overlap. Sexual orientation identity should redirect to Sexual identity, by the way, as I've mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Now we really should try to let others weigh in on this so that it doesn't become a Too long; didn't read discussion too soon. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fraught and difficult subject. Although I'm not an expert (I am a rigid usual suspect, though, I guess), I'm skeptical of your sources Jokestress and I'm not inclined to accept them as the final word. "The author predicts a soon-to-arrive post-GLBT world..." is kind of a red flag that your source is getting into speculative predictions. We want to be pretty conservative here, since this is a complicated and potentially controversial subject, and stick with the most solidly established of mainstream thought, I would say. Let's see if anyone else has something useful to add to the discussion. Herostratus (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss article content at the respective article, but this discussion is about inclusion and organization of this template. We don't need a "final word," we merely need evidence that the terms are used in the context of discussion about sexual orientation. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"[W]e merely need evidence that the terms are used in the context of discussion about sexual orientation" is arguable and subject to further clarification. If they're used used in the context of discussion about sexual orientation by two guys at the Mets game, then probably not. If they're used used in the context of discussion about sexual orientation by fringe theorists, polemicists, insufficiently established persons, and so on, then also probably not. Herostratus (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't talking about sourcing this to sports fans and Wikipedia editors taking pot-shots from behind pseudonyms. We are talking about textbooks and academic journals by people who study this stuff for a living. It's clear there's analysis in scholarly works about this phenomenon, so we should include them in this template. Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Including them in this template is one thing (and again, I've agreed with that inclusion); listing them as sexual orientations is another, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)