Template talk:Sexual orientation

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 be merged with/redirect to Sexual identity, by the way, as I've mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Now we really should wait and see if others weigh in on this before, or if, we continue this discussion, 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)

I think the template is fine as it is now. This is a Sexual Orientation template so it is logical to label the heading as "Sexual Orientations" and not "Binary concepts." Plus, labelling the orientations as Binary Concepts might give people the impression that Sexual Orientation is split into two: Binary and Non-binary, and that intersexuality and third gender listed under non-binary, for example, are sexual orientations (which they are clearly not). I also agree with Flyer22, that "Pansexuality and polysexuality are not considered sexual orientations by any authoritative source on sexual orientation." By authoritative, I mean this and this. Also, the polysexuality article seems a bit iffy and fringe-ish to me... Someone963852 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the same and similar issues with regard to listing the mainstream categories under "Binary concepts." Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, they seem to have little energy but for concise reasoning and editing. IMHO Pansexuality and polysexuality are distinct from bisexuality but only if one can accept that there are numerous ways of being. To me it seems the way forward is to accept that the template should expand but search for the most NPOV of doing so. I'm not sure what that is. Insomesia (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd rather not. The regulars at WP:MED, either by training or personal experience, see the world through a medical gaze. One of the problems with all our coverage of sexuality is the over-medicalization of the topic, which does not reflect the published material on the topic. There is a significant amount of discussion within philosophy of science regarding this problem, which emerged about 100 years ago. The systematizing impulse that appeals to many Wikipedia editors reflects the same impulse among people who seek to create rigid categories and things like binary systems (and infobox templates). The American Psychiatric Association is a trade group with a vested financial interest in medicalizing these topics, and they have a long history of conservatism when it comes to sexuality. They considered gays diseased until 1973. That's a larger issue for specific articles, though. In the case of this template, it's redundant to call the template "Sexual orientation" and then repeat "Sexual orientations." Anything in the box should be a sexual orientation, and if we are going to split out the binary concepts Bisexual Heterosexual Homosexual, they should be labeled as such. I also believe Intersexuality Third gender Two-Spirit should all be removed, as they are not sexual orientations. Perhaps the template should be renamed sexualities? There are a bunch of problems with how this is structured, and it reinforces some rather outdated ways of thinking about all this. Jokestress (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Then it's likely that the template is due for a bit of an overhaul. Perhaps therein lies the answer. And speaking of bias, studies reaffirm that all of Wikipedia tends to lean towards conservative viewpoints and only using old-school sourcing and standards when our own directives are to utilize vast published sources. We may not be able to solve all these issues but why not rework the entire template into something that does work for the better of our readers. We are here to share knowledge so let's do that. Insomesia (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Excellent idea. Let me think on this a bit and make a proposal. Jokestress (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

When making a proposal, take into consideration that Pansexuality and Polysexuality should not be on equal footing or equal validity as the other three/four definite sexual orientations. Especially Polysexuality - a possible made up term by those who dislike the negative connotation attached to bisexuality, and an article using only three sources named "Pimple No More", "Bisexuals Making Out with Cyborgs", and "Open Letter to a Former Bisexual." Someone963852 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, as shown above, I asked WP:MED to weigh in. I've already stated that pansexuality and polysexuality are not considered distinct from bisexuality or sexual orientations by any authoritative source, and that authoritative sources are what we are supposed to follow on this topic. In the end, while there can be stated to be more than two genders, a person's sex is either male or female or a combination of the two, as was recently discussed at Talk:Gender#Examples don't prove prevalence, and bisexuality covers attraction to both. Besides that, the concept of third gender or more than three genders is not widely accepted by experts in these fields. Jokestress can go on and on about "medicalization" all she wants and about how The American Psychiatric Association "has a long history of conservatism" just because they once categorized homosexuality as a disease, like most mental health associations and people in the world at that time, something Jokestress also didn't have a problem categorizing as not too long ago, but we follow authoritative sources on this subject. And such sources do indeed reflect the published material on the topic, the majority of the published material on this topic. We don't go by what one or a few researchers state, which is why the WP:FRINGE guideline exists. Going by what one or a few researchers state leaves the door open for anything to be defined as a sexual orientation, including zoophilia; this is why we follow scientific consensus on this issue. We don't get to define sexual orientation the way that we won't to. It's only redundant to Jokestress to have a "Sexual orientations" field in the Sexual orientations template because she wants the non-binary sexual attractions to also be viewed as sexual orientations. The "Orientations" field has been included for years because the template also covers other topics, so we should of course specify which topics are which by listing them under their respective fields. The template does not only have to include sexual orientations, and can also include topics related to sexual orientation. Gender is related to sexual orientation, meaning the gender or genders a person is sexually attracted to. Related topics are included as fields in most templates, such as Template:Rape, as I'm sure that Jokestress knows. If Jokestress wants a Sexualities template, where zoophilia and many other types of sexualities can be included, she can create one. But the Sexual orientation template will remain.

In closing, Jokestress never follows authoritative sources and is always for WP:FRINGE views, likely because of her bias against anything she perceives to be a medicalization. Wikipedia, however, is not supposed to work that way. I have tweaked the template again, this time changing "Non-binary concepts" to "Non-binary categories" because intersex is not a concept. I will also now ask that the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to weigh in on this discussion, because debating against scientific consensus on this topic has gone on long enough. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There's almost no consensus that I know of that there are more than two sexual genders other than ambiguity between the two well-known genders (as when natal genitals don't appear to correspond to chromosomes), so sexualities that are premised on there being three or more are hardly going to be established within scholarly consensus as sexual orientations. Some societies, none of them large, claim three or more, apparently as a way of saying that no man or woman in their culture is gay.

I tried to find an abstract definition of sexual orientation within which heterosexuality etc. are concrete cases, but I didn't find one. Maybe I didn't look in the right places. The American Psychiatric or Psychological Association offers one that sort of serves, but not entirely. Socially, a substantial (albeit not necessarily majoritarian) societal acceptance seems to be a precondition to a sexuality being accepted as a sexual orientation, especially reachable when in many communities many people who share a proposed-for-recognition sexual orientation are raising children, even by adoption. We don't count desires for vibrators, although popular enough, nor desires for same-ethnicity sexual-romantic relations, although overwhelmingly popular, as sexual orientations. Two are counted by scientists who rely on hormonal definitions; three or four by those relying on social definitions. As far as I know, ethnologists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and most other scholars have no intradisciplinary consensus or defer to that in psychology or an allied field, so the financial self-interest of one profession's members has little bearing.

Law has something to contribute, but not clearly enough to be citable directly in an article. I don't know if any statute or regulation defines sexual orientation, but some civil rights laws popularly considered as advancing gay rights likely recognize several sexualities within the reach of civil rights; I think I read the text of one years ago as itemizing heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, even if the last was included only to pander to the anti-gay crowd to get gays to stop having sex. I don't know if any law (not counting proposals) goes beyond the four.

In the template, the term binary should not be in a heading, because sexual orientation by an established definition is not limited to two, but reaches three or four, so binary doesn't apply and any other numerical term is too inflexible or unfamiliar for a template heading, althugh it may be fine in sourced article text.

Rather than create a separate Sexualities template, I'd rather there were a subdivided template: orientations at the top, other sexualities below that section, and more distantly related topics (e.g., gender or APA) below that. A logistical problem with separate templates is that there are probably only a few articles, if even a few, that would carry one template but not the other. The template on the pansexuality article, for example, probably should list sexual orientations, albeit separately from other sexualities such as pansexuality, while the template on the bisexuality article would list sexualities, albeit separately from other sexual orientations such as bisexuality. By structuring the existing template that way, we avoid the work of pasting a new template into a slew of articles that already have the other template.

A separate article describing fringe claims for other sexualities being sexual orientations might be helpful. Otherwise, adding (if not already present) to articles on polysexuality and other non-orientation sexualities that there are (possibly fringe) views that they are sexual orientations would be acceptable. I think the standard for reporting a fringe view is that it is propounded by someone who meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so that may suggest writing a third-party-sourced article about a person who argues for more orientations and then collecting those pro-orientation views into a separate article about the non-consensus views about sexual orientations, along with criticisms.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Nick. Good to see you again. Will you clarify what you mean by "Two are counted by scientists who rely on hormonal definitions; three or four by those relying on social definitions."? Are you speaking of sexual orientations, as in heterosexuality and homosexuality and saying that bisexuality is covered by homosexuality, or are you speaking of genders? Above, you definitely used the definition of gender that can refer to sex (as in biological sex). And when you stated "e.g., gender or APA," by "APA"...were you referring to listing the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association in the template? I'm also not sure what you mean by "The template on the pansexuality article, for example, probably should list sexual orientations, albeit separately from other sexualities such as pansexuality, while the template on the bisexuality article would list sexualities, albeit separately from other sexual orientations such as bisexuality." It appears that you are stating that when we go to the Pansexuality article, pansexuality should not be highlighted in the template as a sexual orientation, and, when we go to the Bisexuality article, bisexuality should not be highlighted in the template as a sexuality.

Also, in what way do you think that paraphilic sexualities should be included, or do you feel that they should be included at all? Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The research conclusion that sexual orientation is determined by prenatal hormonal processing is used to support the narrower definition, that there are only two sexual orientations, those resulting from the hormonal processing. As far as I know, those researchers don't consider bisexuality a sexual orientation. I disagree because I go with social definitions and think that prevails at the APA level.

Including APA (the one that leads in defining sexual orientations as I think the other mainly agrees) in the template could be argued wither way. For example, if there's a listing of more distantly-related articles that already lists the APAs, the template could link to that list without itself listing the APA.

You wrote, "[i]t appears that you are stating that when we go to the Pansexuality article, pansexuality should not be highlighted in the template as a sexual orientation, and, when we go to the Bisexuality article, bisexuality should not be highlighted in the template as a sexuality." That's correct, because bisexuality would be in the template section on sexual orientations and pansexuality would be in the template section on sexualities.

Paraphilias probably should be included either explicitly or implicitly, the latter especially if there are very many: The template could link to a list, index, or summary article of them.

Sectioning the template clarifies it.

Renaming the template is probably necessary, but I assume a redirect can be created within the Template namespace, so that articles don't have to be edited just because a template was renamed.

I'll probably be back online Saturday; I don't know about tomorrow yet. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template additions and removals

Among the many articles that should be added to the revised Sexuality template are Heteroflexibility and Paraphilia. If anyone else has some they like to see added during the major reorganiztion, please list them here. Jokestress (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Going on what has been stated here and at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, you have no WP:Consensus for revision of the Sexual orientation template. Seeing as sexual orientation is a valid topic/concept, a template for it should remain. Like I stated above, if you want a Sexualities template, where zoophilia and many other types of sexualities can be included, you can create one. That does not mean that the Sexual orientation template must go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

However, if the Sexual orientation template were to be abolished in name, only after WP:Consensus is achieved for abolishing it, I would of course be okay with there only being a Sexualities template covering sexualities, including sexual orientation...as long as it distinguishes between sexual orientations (per scientific consensus) and sexual identities, like the Template:Gender and sexual identities does, and identifies paraphilias as separate from these areas. While being a zoophile is a sexual identity, it shouldn't be placed beside concepts such as pansexuality, polysexual, and similar. It should be listed under "Paraphilic sexual identities" or something similar to that wording. The others should probably be titled "General sexual identities" or something similar to that wording because titling them "Non-paraphilic sexual identities" and having them come before the paraphilias, which they should, seems "off."

If we continue to include primarily gender topics, such as third gender and Two-Spirit, on the template, then "Template:Gender and sexual identities" will need to be abolished as redundant. If we don't, then "Template:Gender and sexual identities" needs to be made into a primarily gender-based template as the sexual orientation and other sexuality topics it includes will be redundant to the Sexualities template. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side, Jokestress and I have been filling out the Pansexuality article,[1][2] which helps (although I did have to make a minor tweak to my expansion right afterward). I should have been filled the article out during the time that I was supporting its existence (that there is validity in having a Wikipedia article on it) on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has kept an eye on this discussion from the sidelines, the pushing for some kind of overhaul is looking really abstract and not based on reliable sources. Or is it a request to delete this template? It's unclear what exactly the end goal is and what it's based on. Siawase (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress feels that we should have a Sexualities template that covers all sexualities, including paraphilias. Basically, she argues that sexual orientations should be covered in a template called Sexualities. My and others' point is that the sexual orientations (the ones that are recognized as sexual orientations by scientific consensus) should still be listed as sexual orientations. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

According to some contributors here, there are three and only three sexual orientations. We don't really need a template for 4 articles (including the lack of sexual orientation). In addition, we have a separate template which combines sexual and gender identities. Those are two separate phenomena which often get conflated, so separating them would be helpful. A template called Sexuality would solve both problems. I'll propose what that might look like in the next few days. Jokestress (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a specious argument that requires ignoring everything under the "Research" header. There's more than 4 articles about sexual orientation, even narrowly defined, on Wikipedia. Siawase (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not "according to some contributors here, there are three and only three sexual orientations." It's according to authoritative sources that there are only three sexual orientations, as has been repeated extensively now, including at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Asexuality is not even widely recognized as a sexual orientation, as that article makes abundantly clear, but it has more support as a sexual orientation by the scientific community than pansexuality does, and certainly more than polysexuality does. In summary, scientific consensus is what we are supposed to follow when it comes to defining sexual orientation. Otherwise, anything, such as zoophilia, could be listed as a sexual orientation at this template and at the Sexual orientation article. And as the archives of this template, and the Sexual orientation talk page, show, people have tried to get zoophilia listed as a sexual orientation at this template and at the Sexual orientation article. Most researchers do not recognize the paraphilia zoophilia, or any paraphilia, as a sexual orientation, just like most of them don't recognize pansexuality, polysexuality and the various other sexual identities as sexual orientations. This is why no authoritative source states that pansexuality or polysexuality are sexual orientations, although the American Psychological Association does recognize that, in addition to the heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual labels, "people may use other labels or none at all." Most experts in these fields very clearly distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual identity. All of that is the point concerning any objections to Jokestres's views. As I pointed out before, and as Siawase pointed out just recently (in response to Jokestress argument, not others'), the Sexual orientation template does not only cover sexual orientations. Related topics are included as well, just as they are in most templates. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair our own article states These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Asexuality (the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category. Even the standard-bearer of sexuality information, Kinsey, put sexuality on a bell-curve with gradations. There is the well-accepted delineations but I think there is room for our template to be somewhat more inclusive. What I'm willing to see is what changes are proposed. I also see that adding zoosexuality and other paraphilias is quite problematic although a link to a list of paraphilias might be ok if it is presented neutrally. To me this is an opportunity to edit, both remove and add links, that best serve readers looking for sexual orientation information. Insomesia (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in formatting that text from the Sexual orientation article, Insomesia. It's worded that way because, as noted, not everyone feels comfortable identifying as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...and some have different terms due to their non-Western environment. I mentioned above that the American Psychological Association acknowledges this. The template does include other sexualities, as we know; it just doesn't categorize them as sexual orientations, per above. But I thank you for looking at this from every angle and keeping a level head about it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's just see exactly what is proposed and go from there. Insomesia (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I answered in the topic/section Pansexuality and Polysexuality, which overlaps this one. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)