Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3

AC/DC
I'd like to squeeze the term "AC/DC" in this article, just as an example of another name for bisexuals, or a nickname/pun related to naming. Where should we place it? Then I can also add it in the disambiguation page for AC/DC, finally. I do have sources, so... Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section, which already goes over different terms, should suffice for placement of your material. I don't see any other section it would best fit in. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Bi
I did not see the end of the edit summary. What you mean? Pass a Method  talk  16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bi" does not exclusively mean "sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical or romantic attraction to both males and females." The word is "bisexuality" and "bi" is just a shortened, slang form of it. Adding (also bi) after Bisexuality is unnecessary.


 * It seems like I'm not the only one that disagrees with your edit. Someone963852 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The most popular dictionary does not necessarily describe Bi as "slang", see where it is also a standard noun/adjective. Either way, slang is not disallowed on wikipedia. Can you give me a good reaso not to revert you?  Pass a Method   talk  08:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to have that in the article? It seems like you just want to revert just so you can see your edit appear on the page.
 * Bisexuality "is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical or romantic attraction to both males and females, especially with regard to men and women" not "a bisexual person" (from the dictionary).


 * I also reverted your edit on the heterosexuality page.
 * Any outside opinions on this issue before the edit warring might start? Someone963852 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, an edit war has already started. But, anyway, I thought Someone963852 was reverting "bi" because "bi" can be applied to anything involving twos, such as a bicycle and so on and is not exclusive to bisexuality. It's different from when you were reverted on the Homosexuality article, Pass a Method. For one thing, "gay" is already mentioned lower in the lead of that article. And while "gay" is not exclusive to homosexuality, it mostly is these days. The reason I believe you were reverted on that article is because it was unnecessary and is addressed later on in the lead. As for "bi" being an alternate name for bisexuality, I can't say that the lead of this article should mention it, although I do see a better argument for "straight" being in the lead of the Heterosexuality article. If "bi" is to be placed in the lead of this article, it should be placed in the second paragraph that is already addressing the etymology of the term. And, no, I don't feel that we should have an Etymology section until significant information is gathered for it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was definitely the wrong part of speech. Bi isn't short for bisexuality, it's short for bisexual as in "I'm bi". --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What they are trying to get across is that the term bisexuality consists of more than just the sexual orientation, but also behavior, self-identification as bisexual, and feelings regarding either of those. This is why a person can have sex with a man and a woman, but still be heterosexual or just self-identify as heterosexual.


 * Anyway, Pass a Method is always adding slang or otherwise informal words to articles in inappropriate ways. See Talk:Erection, for example. 50.17.159.152 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation in the lead
I know that many people will not be seeing this at this talk page, so this is more of a note to show that it was addressed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is Pansexuality talked about in the description?
Should be lower down or removed completely. Trans4life (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Hello, Trans4life. Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you twice attempted to alter the lead, including attempts to remove pansexuality. Well, it was in the lead before Teammm moved it to the Label accuracy section a couple of days after your attempts. Considering sections, a better fit would be the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section. But it was in the lead because, although bisexuality covers romantic or sexual attraction to males and females, meaning that, basing this on biological sex and not gender identity or gender expression, this therefore covers romantic or sexual attraction to all human beings, including intersex individuals (especially since intersex people usually identify as male or female), sources don't usually define bisexuality as a sexual or romantic attraction to all gender identities and intersex individuals. You have displayed that you define bisexuality that way, in part at least, at different articles on Wikipedia, but sources usually define it as a romantic or sexual attraction to males and females or to simply men and women. But since some people do define bisexuality to mean a romantic or sexual attraction to all gender identities and to intersex individuals, I felt that this was worth mentioning in the lead. And if I ever get around to significantly fixing up this article and expanding it in some places, it will "need" to be mentioned in the lead...per WP:LEAD. The term that describes such attraction, or, alternatively defines bisexuality in that way, is pansexuality. If we are going to mention in the lead that bisexuality can be defined in this way, it is extremely relevant and seemingly needed to mention the term used for that description. The lead also says "males and females" before it says "men and women" because of the fact that "men and women" are gender categories and therefore people may be neither of those (third gender), and because bisexuality is also occasionally used when referring to non-human animals.


 * Above, you asked, "Is this an encyclopaedia or a dictionary? Shouldn't we have a definition that explains what bisexuality is generally accepted as rather than what the dictionary briefly basically covers?" My answer is: We don't go by dictionary definitions for the lead of this article or for the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles. For this article, I added the American Psychological Association source to go beside the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation source moments ago because we should go by authoritative scientific sources first and foremost when definitively defining any one sexual orientation. And the bisexualindex.org.uk does not qualify as a WP:Reliable source for the definitive definition. Maybe not at all. But it may be okay to use to assert that some people don't define bisexuality by only the two-sex/two-gender model, which is why I am the one who took it from the Pansexuality article and added it to this one for that assertion. But I wasn't sure then that it should be used and I'm less sure now.


 * As you may have seen, I removed your comment from the Bi section above. This is because it was cutting into someone else's comment and was unsigned, making it look as though that person made the comment. It's usually not good practice to add a comment in the center of someone's else's comment even if signed, however. Be careful to avoid that in the future and remember to sign your user name. I'll add a Welcome tag to your talk page which will help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

... the genders "men" and "women"
The first sentence in the Definitions section currently reads:I'm going to remove the last prepositional phrase, so that the sentence reads:I'm doing this for three reasons: Unlike my first two reasons, this one is not by itself grounds for removing the phrase; but it adds weight to the argument that the phrase adds no useful information to the sentence but does add unnecessary confusion, if even the editor who added it was unsure what it meant. If anyone objects to this edit, please explain why here before reverting it. Thanks.--Jim10701 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Men and women are not the names of genders. Male and female are genders; men and women are simply the plural forms of the nouns man and woman, not the names of genders.
 * 2) Since the first part of the sentence already covers males and females, the part I'm removing adds nothing at all to the sentence (besides the misinformation that men and women are the names of genders) except confusion as to how "the genders 'men' and 'women is different from "males and females".
 * 3) The use of scare quotes (as around men and women in the phrase I'm removing) is very often a sign that the writer is not sure what he or she is trying to say and adds the quotes in the hope that somehow the quotes will make the point clear even though the writer him- or herself is unsure what the point is. I believe that is the case here.
 * Hello, Jim. I refer you to the Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 21 and Talk:Gender discussions. You will have to read all or most of that first discussion to understand what is meant by using both "males and females" and "men and women"; the two are not always synonymous, especially taking into account non-human animals, which of course means that "sex" and "gender" are not always synonymous. "Sex" is more so a biological term, while "gender" is more so a social term (obviously applying more to humans than non-humans). A person can be biologically/physically male, for example, but identify as a woman (transgender), and there is evidence that physically being one sex but maintaining that you are mentally the opposite sex can be biologically-based. "Men" and "women" are indeed the names of genders in many scholarly sources; they are gender categories, while "male" and "female" are sex categories. Like I stated elsewhere, "sex vs. gender" has been extensively debated on the Gender talk page, and my view on the topic comes from having read a lot of scholarly texts, including transgender topics, about it. It was also recently echoed by a prominent editor from WP:MED (Jmh649) when speaking to an IP. In the section right above this one, I also went over my reasons for including "toward males and females, especially with regard to men and women" in the lead. So I was not spreading misinformation and was certainly not confused when I added "or to the genders 'men' and 'women'." I understand how these distinctions can be especially confusing to laypeople, however, since this article was using "males and females" and "men and women," instead of "sex or gender" like the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles. And it is because of this that I am not much bothered by your removal, and have tweaked the lead.


 * Another discussion that might interest you/can be helpful to you is the Talk:Gender discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"...irrespective of the person's gender."
I think this change:
 * Bisexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior toward males and females a person, irrespective of the person's gender.

is sufficiently at odds with the (SOED) dictionary definition of [the noun derived from] "sexually attracted to individuals of both sexes", that I think it requires a reference. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted, per the reliable sources (here and here) and per this already being covered by pansexuality, which is currently mentioned in the Label accuracy section. This was also addressed in the discussion, where I noted exactly why pansexuality needs to go back in the lead (seeing as it is considered an aspect of bisexuality). But instead of moving the pansexuality text to the lead only, the lower body should also cover the topic...per WP:LEAD (what is covered in the lead should also be covered in the lower body of the article). I will now move the pansexuality text back to the lead and add a bit more about pansexuality to the lower body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I formatted the article like I stated above, making this, this, this, this and this additional tweak. As seen with those edits, the pansexuality text is no longer mentioned in the Label accuracy section, but rather in the Sexual orientation, identity, behavior section; I'd noted in the "Why is Pansexuality talked about in the description?" discussion that it is better addressed there. As I also noted in the "Why is Pansexuality talked about in the description?" discussion and implied in the discussion, keep in mind that "bisexuality" does not only refer to human sexual activity. The lead and the lower body of the article address this. So because "bisexuality" doesn't only refer to humans, it makes more sense not to have the initial sentence state "men and women" or "person," or even "gender" (which is used in addition to "sex" for the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles). That stated, the Human sexual activity article is pipelinked under "behavior"...and "bisexuality" is used more in reference to humans than to non-humans, so there is a lot of leeway on that front. Still, seeing as bisexuality, at its core, concerns males and females (including intersex people...considering that they are a physical combination of male and female, usually look more like one or the other/usually identify as one or the other), and seeing as gender is more complex than biological sex, it is better to state "males and females" before stating "men and women." As mentioned, the gender aspect is elaborated on with pansexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think bisexuality at least can be in some cases and for some people dependent on the sex (Not "gender", folks!) of a person even though they are attracted to people of both sexes (yes, very few bisexuals, if any, as with straight and gay people, are sexually attracted to all human beings in the universe). Bisexuals are less likely to like very feminine men (people who are "basically female", but are male based on at least physiology) and masculine women (vice versa). They often like certain features in feaures in men, certain in women and some for both ("asexual"/"non-sex-based" aspects, or could be said to simply be overlaps), and the same goes for things they dislike (examples include long hair, moles, wearing glasses, being tall, being tan and being muscly). Bjørnar Munkerud 22:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:A153:D51A:EB96:6953 (talk)


 * I agree that we shouldn't be adding "all sexes/all genders," "more than one gender" (or "more than one sex," "more than one sex or gender" or vice versa) or "irrespective of the person's gender" for the first line of the article, or for the first line in the section about definitions. These are phrasings that most sources do not use to define bisexuality. And these phrasings are broached in the rest of the lead's first paragraph and in the section about definitions, so it's not like they aren't broached at all. WP:DUE WEIGHT is a factor here. I added an invisible note to the lead about what's been discussed on this talk page about the definition topic, and also another source that I am sure is authoritative on the topic (the American Psychiatric Association). 199.229.232.42 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just thought more on "irrespective of the person's gender." That phrasing isn't even true in the case of most bisexual-identified people, since most of them do romantically/sexually prefer one sex over the other. At least the lead and lower body of the article mentions that identifying as bisexual does not necessarily mean "equal romantic/sexual attraction." 199.229.232.42 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "More than one gender," meaning more than two, is also covered by the Polysexuality article. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Romantic" and "emotional"
Xagg removed "romantic," stating, "sexual attraction encompasses sexual, not romantic, attraction, per its definition, and given that anyone whose feelings of attraction are limited to the romantic are technically asexual."

Someone963852 reverted Xagg stating "Not what the source says," and Xagg agreed with the revert while removing "sexual" where it isn't needed.

Someone963852's revert was of course correct because the authoritative sources include "romantic" in their definition of sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality).

I started this section to address Xagg's assertion that "anyone whose feelings of attraction are limited to the romantic are technically asexual," and to address Xagg's addition of "emotional."

Xagg, the word "or" doesn't have to be exclusive. See WP:ANDOR. The WP:ANDOR guideline is why the combination "and/or" was removed from the lead some time ago. A person who is romantically attracted to someone is usually sexually attracted to that person, considering that the two feelings usually go hand in hand when romantic attraction is involved. These are the times that they don't with regard to romantic attraction: When sexual attraction has worn off, which happens to some long-term couples, such as married couples, and especially elderly couples, although the "in love" feelings may remain. And in some cases of asexuality. I state "some cases of asexuality" because asexuality is not always defined as "no sexual attraction"; it is also, and generally, defined as "a lack of sexual attraction" and/or the "lack of interest in sexual activity." But asexuality is not about not being sexually attracted to a romantic/sexual partner, initially or after some time; it's about people who don't, or generally don't, experience sexual attraction to anyone, and therefore have no, or generally no, interest in sexual activity with anyone. Further, asexual people can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, since sexual orientation is also about romantic attraction and most asexuals do have romantic relationships. They generally use alternate terms for this, however, such as heteroromantic, homoromantic and biromantic. The Asexuality article, which I am a significant contributor to, goes over all of this about asexuality.

As for adding "emotional," I feel that it is unneeded because it is redundant. "Romantic" always encompasses emotional feelings. That's why we don't include "emotional" in the lead of the Heterosexuality and Homosexuality articles either. Or at least not in the first sentence where "romantic" is also included. I'm not sure why the authoritative sources include "emotional," unless it's to cover the "affectionate"/"affectional" terms they used to use. But we certainly don't need people thinking that just being emotional or affectionate with someone makes someone heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...if they take "or" to be an exclusive word in that context...although I am certain that most people will not take it that way. Sources about sexual orientation usually include "sexual" and/or "romantic" without also using "emotional." Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find an authoritative source that defines what "emotional attraction," is but the general consensus seems to say that emotional attraction is more like a close bond between people, the emotional aspects of a person that draws you to them, or emotional qualities that you really admire in another person.
 * Going by this, people can be emotionally attracted to their favorite idols, actors, heroes, best friends, kin loved-ones, etc. of either or both sexes. This do not necessary make them bisexual, unlike what adding "emotional" to the definition of bisexuality will probably suggest. I agree with Flyer22 that Romantic attraction covers this area of emotional attraction more specificically, so "emotional" is unneeded. Someone963852 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Flyer22, thank you for your comments. I actually agree with the vast majority of what you wrote above. However, I did realize before I made the changes that the sources included both sexual and romantic attraction in their definitions of sexual orientation. I would like to elaborate on the reasons for the changes.
 * The main reason I originally removed 'romantic' feelings from being one of the aspects denoted by the term 'bisexuality' in the 'context of human sexual attraction' is that sexual attraction and romantic attraction are treated as two different types of attraction by the sources and in general, although they can coexist in comprising sexual orientation. Thereby, I agreed with the revert to the extent that 'human sexual attraction' should be changed simply to 'human attraction', since 'romantic' attraction, although encompassed in the sources' definitions of sexual orientation, isn't mentioned by the sources as being encompassed by their definitions of sexual attraction. It seems that this change has been kept, so that's fine. In summary, my intent was correcting the sentence to reflect that the definitions of sexual orientation by the sources encompass emotional, romantic, and sexual/physical attraction, each of which are distinct types of attraction although they can coexist in comprising sexual orientation.
 * As for the mention of 'emotional' attraction, I do think it's mostly redundant and unnecessary given that it's normally taken in these cases to denote feelings in the context of romance. The only reason I added it was that the revert comment seemed to suggest we should go strictly by the sources. However, if we are permitted some leeway, I agree that the article is better without it.
 * Thanks for your explanations and clarification of concepts such as asexuality, and reiteration of the and/or rule on Wikipedia. --Xagg (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations as well. I was the one who added the "human sexual attraction" line some time ago. And I'd added "sexual attraction" because the point of that line is to convey how the the term "bisexuality" is mainly used. "Bisexuality," like the terms "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality," is mainly used in the context of sexual attraction. But I didn't take into consideration how that would go against the "to denote romantic or sexual feelings" part of that sentence. So, yeah, as implied above, I agree with removing "sexual" from the first part of that sentence. As for "emotional," I still don't see it as distinct from "romantic" in the context of sexual orientation. I'm glad that we have all come to an agreement to remove it, and so I've done that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ipul mbc penglaman pertama kerja di bidang sexa, apalagi harus melayani banyak karakter yg bernacam2 tamu yg datang ad laki2 yg bener pyur gay ada juga yg pngn coba2 FARIASUI SEX BARU DAN AD JUGA TA NTE2 yg ke hausan sex DISINILA SY BISA MENGETAUI gaya dan mcam2 EXPRSI SEX yg mungkin slama ni yg tdk tau. dukunya emng berawal karna kekurangan ekonomi tapi sekarang sy jadi ketagihn sex. SY INGIN mempunya stu pasangan yg bisa memuaskan gaira sex saya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.72.6 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This month, I tweaked a part of my initial comment in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Freud
I think the material on Freud in this article is poorly written and confusing. It's not helpful to tell readers that Freud, "theorized that every person has the ability to become bisexual at some time in his or her life", and then explain that extremely vague observation by a needlessly long, direct quotation from a psychoanalyst (especially not when quoting from comments made in a Wikinews interview, which shouldn't be given the same weight as scholarly material). Another source was a New York Times article about J. Michael Bailey's views that only mentions Freud in passing. I'm going to consider ways of rewriting the material on Freud. The best approach would be to remove all of the existing material on Freud, and simply start afresh, with new sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no one has replied to me or made any objection, I'm going to go ahead and make the change I proposed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pansexuality
I don't believe that "pansexuality" is a term used by serious sex researchers. I suggest that all mention of "pansexuality" be removed from the lead (or, failing that, at least moved to a less prominent position within the lead). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Most researchers certainly don't use the term pansexuality. And goodness knows I have done what I can to keep it from being listed as a sexual orientation on Template:Sexual orientation (it's there now, but not as a sexual orientation). See this statement made by me during Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for backstory on that. But also see the Talk:Bisexuality/Archive 3 discussion, and the two discussions following that for why mention of pansexuality is in the lead. Though bisexuality is most commonly defined as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to two sexes (male and female)/two genders (men and women), and is defined in only that way by the authoritative scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, enough sources define bisexuality as romantic and/or sexual attraction to "more than one gender" or "irrespective of gender," and, in some cases, "all sexes/genders." And that is exactly the definition of pansexuality. If we are going to mention in this article the other way that bisexuality is defined, which we should, we might as well call it by the term that has been assigned to it -- pansexuality. It doesn't make sense to me to mention the alternative definition of bisexuality without mentioning the term pansexuality. Additionally, mentioning pansexuality in the lead complies with WP:LEAD, considering that it is a significant aspect of the bisexuality topic and is covered in the Definitions section; its inclusion in the lead also allows for a compromise with people who apply the term bisexuality more loosely than how it is most commonly defined. And in this way...the lead is WP:Neutral on the topic and generally helps keep this kind of edit, which leads to this, this, this, this, this and this, from happening. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. It doesn't seem to me, though, that there is so great a difference in practice between these two definitions of bisexuality, or that the issue deserves as much space as it has been given. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, not a great difference. But some people are adamant about distinguishing pansexuality from bisexuality; see the current state of Talk:Pansexuality, for example. And it seems to me to be something that we should address in the lead and of course the lower body of the article if it's going to be mentioned in the lead, per what I stated in my initial post of this section above. Starting off the definition of bisexuality by its most common definition, and the only one that is accepted by authoritative scientific organizations, and then going into the alternative definition, is the best approach to me. There is not a lot about it in the lead, though I can see how it looks like there is...considering that the lead still needs significant expansion. And it only has one paragraph lower in the article. I'm open to the pansexuality text being reworded in the lead, but I'd rather it not be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. I won't remove it. I will try to rearrange the lead to give it a little less emphasis, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it fits any better than immediately coming after the standard definition. It doesn't make sense to me to list one definition, then go into other things about bisexuality, and then go back to the definition aspect. Also see this discussion on my talk page about the matter. With editors who feel that way, it is important to present the second definition immediately after the first. Take a look at the WP:Featured article Atheism for an example of how to present definitions of a topic in the lead. The definitions should be addressed head-on, and then other aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead at present reads as follows:

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women. Pansexuality may or may not be subsumed under bisexuality, as the terms are often treated as synonyms and people may consider bisexuality, like pansexuality, to encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender.

Bisexuality is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation along with heterosexuality and homosexuality, which are each parts of the heterosexual–homosexual continuum. A bisexual identity does not necessarily equate to equal sexual attraction to both sexes; commonly, people who have a distinct but not exclusive sexual preference for one sex over the other also identify themselves as bisexual.

Bisexuality has been observed in various human societies and elsewhere in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history. The term bisexuality, however, like the terms hetero- and homosexuality, was coined in the 19th century."

I don't find that arrangement altogether logical. The discussion of pansexuality is jammed in the middle of the explanation of bisexuality - thus we move from being told that the term "bisexuality" is "mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women" to the explanation of "pansexuality" and then back to bisexuality again (the explanation of its being one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation). It seems more logical that the "one of the three main classifications" information should follow immediately after the "mainly used in the context of human attraction" part. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pansexuality is not jammed in the middle of the explanation of bisexuality; it is presented as another definition for bisexuality. Remember to keep in mind that the term pansexuality is a term that is considered by some people to be more inclusive than the term bisexuality, as noted by the Pansexuality article with WP:Reliable sources. Googling this matter shows the debate with regard to using the term bisexuality vs. the term pansexuality. But whatever the case, pansexuality is noted as another term for bisexuality (which the lead of this article currently notes with WP:Reliable sources), and counts as bisexuality with regard to what is the Bisexual community. It is not much of an academic term/concept, as we've established above. It is, by all means and purposes, bisexuality...except that it explicitly includes those who may not identify as male/female and/or man/woman (no matter what their genetics identify them as). So the best way to remedy the current wording for the second definition (which is actually two more definitions) is to start out the second definition of bisexuality more generally. So it would then read as: People may also consider bisexuality to encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender; this is sometimes termed pansexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If "pansexuality" is a term that is more inclusive than bisexuality, then it is not another definition of bisexuality, it is a distinct concept. So my point about the term being awkwardly forced into the middle of the explanation of bisexuality stands. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is considered more inclusive by some people, but what matters with regard to its relation to bisexuality is that bisexuality is also defined that way. Some people simply call it pansexuality; they do that because they do not like the "baggage" that comes with the term bisexual. This blog by BiNet USA does a pretty good job of explaining that. And because bisexuality is also defined the way that pansexuality is defined, which is supported by WP:Reliable sources (sources that also mention the term pansexuality) in the article, and more on Google Books, it should be noted in this article. I already explained above why it should be noted in the lead. To make a slight tweak to my proposal above, it should read as: It may also be defined as encompassing romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender; this is sometimes termed pansexuality. To leave out that definition of bisexuality is to leave out a significant aspect of this topic (that includes omitting it from the lead) and make the lead non-WP:Neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What matters is that readers not already familiar with an obscure and non-mainstream term such as "pansexuality" will find the lead as currently written confusing, or even illogical - for the reasons I've pointed out. I do recall you explaining why "pansexuality" should be in the lead - perhaps you recall me accepting the explanation? But something does have to be done to improve the discussion of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that my second proposal above takes care of any confusion that could result. Just like many other articles on Wikipedia put the most common definition first, and then lead into alternative definitions immediately after that, I feel that this article should do the same. The "this is sometimes termed pansexuality" part of my proposal is not too confusing; any confusion regarding it will be cleared up (should be anyway) by readers clicking on the pansexuality link and reading that article, just like any confusion about what is the heterosexual–homosexual continuum is cleared up (should be anyway) by clicking on the link for it and reading the article on it; like pansexuality, I'm sure that most readers are not familiar with the term heterosexual–homosexual continuum. Readers also have the option of finding out more about the summary of the definitions by reading the Definitions section. My wording proposal straightforwardly presents an alternative definition of bisexuality and notes that it may be termed pansexuality. The proposal also significantly cuts down mention of the term pansexuality. I see no reason that we should not use that wording in place of the current wording and consider this matter resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added my second proposal, except that I traded the semicolon for a comma and traded the word this for the word which. Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits. I agree that they resolve the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well, for taking the time to discuss these matters and for subsequently contributing to a better lead. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Social factors section
The social factors section states the following:

"Freud has famously summarized on the basis of clinical observations: "[W]e have come to know that all human beings are bisexual—and that their libido is distributed between objects of both sexes, either in a manifest or a latent form." According to Freud, people remain bisexual all their lives in a repression to monosexuality of fantasy and behavior. This idea was taken up in the 1940s by the zoologist Alfred Kinsey who was the first to create a scale to measure the continuum of sexual orientation from hetero to homosexuality. Kinsey studied human sexuality and argued that people have the capability of being hetero or homosexual even if this trait does not present itself in the current circumstances."

I would like to remove the first part of that, the stuff about Freud. I don't think that it represents Freud's views clearly or well, and I also think it overlaps confusingly with the material on Freud that I recently added to the article (which I have tried very hard to be sure is accurate). Without the Freud material, the paragraph would then read as follows:

"In the 1940s the zoologist Alfred Kinsey was the first to create a scale to measure the continuum of sexual orientation from hetero to homosexuality. Kinsey studied human sexuality and argued that people have the capability of being hetero or homosexual even if this trait does not present itself in the current circumstances."

FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, and say go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)