Talk:Bisexuality

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YC5039 (article contribs).

Question

Cite: "The Kinsey scale says that having a higher level attraction to one gender results in less attraction to the other, which some studies do not support.[39]" How does the Kinsey scale say that? It doesn't seem to say anything about "how strong" attraction is, it just measures if its more towards female or male. Does it really say that people in the middle of the scale can't be equally uninterested in men and women? Doesn't the message stay the same? "More people than you'd think are capable of feeling attraction towards male and female bodies."

Misinformation in Definition/Meaning of Bisexuality

In the definition, it says “bisexuality, also known as pansexuality”, which gives the misconception that the two are the same, which is simply not the case. I am not able to edit it due to the fact that I don’t want to sign up and the page is protected. Someone please change this. I understand that some people use the terms interchangeably, but that does not change the fact that they are different, and not the same sexuality with two different terms. Thank you so much! 2601:645:8900:3460:F56E:154D:A71C:2B0A (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not say "bisexuality, also known as pansexuality". But it does say they can be equivalent and provides sources which you have not. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I will vehemently challenge this because in bisexual history, the definition of bisexual was "attraction regardless of gender" long before pansexual was a label. I actually think that the entire bisexual article needs to be redone to reflect this and there needs to be a merging with pansexual with that being listed as an alternative term for bisexual. There are actually several sexual orientation label articles with terms that are indistinguishable from the definitions used by historic bisexual activists. I propose there be a bisexual umbrella or bi+ section to list these other terms like pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual, et cetera.

It is also dishonest and disingenuous to not alter the article to reflect these historical points given that these definitions have existed since the early 1970s. Pansexual as a sexual orientation label is far newer and therefore it should be defaulted towards the bisexual community's own definitions before a later orientation label.

Citations: 216.121.247.122 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You are overegging this unnecessarily. Pansexuality is its own thing, closely related to, but distinct from, bisexuality. They get to define what it is. The distinction is in the nature of their attraction, not in who they find attractive. Sometimes it makes sense to group bi and pan people together (after all its not like the homophobes see any difference) but sometimes it doesn't. It is not for us to deny the pansexuals their own identity if they want it. The alleged animosity between bi and pan people is artificial and deliberately stirred up by people outside of the LGBTQ community for the purposes of creating drama, division and distraction, thus weakening the LGBTQ community as a whole. We do not need to play their game for them. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Except what you're saying is untrue, historically inaccurate, and involves deliberate erasure of years of bisexual history. Either the Wikipedia article can define things correctly, as they were and have been defined, or the Wikipedia article can be completely incorrect. The fact that none of this is even mentioned, and the fact that you're arguing against a mountain of citations shows you are more willing to have misinformation be here than to concede to historical fact.

It does makes sense to put bisexuals and pansexuals together, especially given that all major LGBTQ organizations list pansexuality under the bi+ umbrella. The nature of bisexual attraction has always been defined the same as how pansexual was defined when the label was created in an online community by someone who took the prefix of "bisexual" too literally when it was never defined by two at all. Any historian in bisexual studies or any activist there through the whole entire bisexual revolution will tell you that.

There is no denial of identity when you are simply stating the fact that two identities are synonymous and that this is historical fact and present fact. I don't know a single bisexual person who doesn't identify this way. It has also been scientifically researched and proven that bisexual and pansexual people do not feel attraction differently. The only game being played is in that you're being disingenuous. It isn't a game to tell you that the Wikipedia article is inaccurate in a direct, factual way. Please read a history book or a scientific journal and don't rely on arguing in a way that appeals to emotion in line with your own opinion and not a 60-year-old community history, researched science, and lived experience.

Citations for identical attraction definition:

Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices Flanders CE, LeBreton ME, Robinson M, Bian J, & Caravaca-Morera JA, 2017

“Regardless of Their Gender”: Descriptions of Sexual Identity among Bisexual, Pansexual, and Queer Identified Individuals Galupo MP, Ramirez JL, & Pulice-Farrow L, 2017 216.121.247.122 (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Don't make me tap the sign: WP:NPA. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it a personal attack to tell someone they're being disingenuous about historical fact? That's not an attack and it's not personal. It's a factual observation with no weight behind it unless you take it that way. Intellectual dishonesty isn't a personal thing, neither is a want for factual accuracy. 216.121.247.122 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References