This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Sexology and sexuality This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality

Template:Multidel

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 stated: "A man only being sexually attracted to non-human male animals still would not be subsumed under "sexual orientation." 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 its article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]