Talk:Pansexuality

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2025

Request to change heading "Tensions with Bisexuals" to "Debates with Bisexuals". The current heading implies a stronger tension between Pansexuals and Bisexuals than exists in most queer communities- or, at least, any that I have been a part of. The phrasing "Debates" more accurately represents the more quiet and peacefully ambivalent nature that most discussions over the matter have (that matter being the implication that the prefix "Bi" implies a gender binary, which is denied by Bisexuals, who view it as including non-binary genders). Thank you very much for your time. Jazzy365andafourth (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"Quiet and peacefully ambivalent"? That is definitely NOT the experience of the debates I've had in LGTBQ circles and communities. Pansexuals directly accusing self-identifying bisexuals of transphobia and enbyphobia is something that happens far too often. If the consensus around here is otherwise, then you should have no problem getting your request for the heading change accepted. Javatix (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think tension is definitely appropriate, especially due to the fact that people think pansexuality and bisexuality are the same, even though they are not... Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

"Trisexual" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trisexual has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9 § Trisexual until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree they have diffren meanings Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"Pansexual Pride Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pansexual Pride Day has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 22 § Pansexual Pride Day until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting omnisexuality into a separate topic?

There was, at one point, a thread here about omnisexuality, but the poster deleted it when no comments were made.

Is there any justification to split omnisexuality into a separate topic? Are reliable sources referring to it as something different from pansexuality?

For that matter, does FAQ #1 need to be readdressed? Or does it still represent the consensus among editors? —C.Fred (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the split to Omnisexuality happened without discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be merged back into this page. It is not strong enough to be its own page. Historyday01 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Update: I changed it back to a redirect and asked people to come here.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

the precedent with the page on polysexualty is that it is strong enought to be its own page. unless you are arguing for the deletion of that page too and redirecting it to bisexualty. also the sources are over ten years old and do not reflect the modern usage. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying the "Omnisexuality" page should be deleted, I'm saying it should be redirected to this one until there are enough reliable sources which justify it being a page on its own. And yes, the polysexuality page should also have its sources improved as well. Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

removing all the content on a page and making it go to a different page is deletion of content of the page is the same as if the page doesn't exit. you are saying that the polysexuality page needs better sources but the omnisexual page needs to be delated to do the same. it will take time but people will add sources. you are slowing if not declining the pages opportunity to grow. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lavender-wikigirl With all due respect, you weren't that interest in growing the page, but rather in forcing it straight to mainspace. It was suggested at one point that you create Draft:Omnisexuality, but you went straight to mainspace.

As far as the existence of the polysexuality page, it's short but has a large quantity of reliable secondary sources. That was one of the things lacking the last time I looked at the omnisexuality page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. And terms like omnisexuality are not even listed in the glossary of terms by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign to give an example. Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

the term polysexual isn't listed there either or Aromanticism or aroace Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

does that mean the pages on aro and aroace should be delated and moved to ace? Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the sources on the articles Aromanticism and Aromantic asexual show that they're notable. At one point, probably, they were all included in Asexuality, then split out when they had enough good sources.

I would like to say that this discussion is not a personal attack at you and things that are important to you, and redirecting means the page history can be used again for a future article. Most of our goals are just keeping Wikipedia verifiable, etc etc.

Omnisexuality being redirected into Pansexuality does not mean they are the same. Most likely, it will redirect to a section, which can mention that they're different. Hope this works out. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. A redirect is never saying that pages are the same. And the Aromanticism and Aromantic asexual pages have enough sources to stand on their own. Presently, the omnisexual page does not. Historyday01 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not know you could do that with redirectes. I am going off all previst redirctes at pointed to the page at large. also you may be right on the 2nd point, its is person for me and i may had goned to invested.

and with the 1st point i was saying that the list was not comprehensive enough to be used it also lacks terms like transfem and transmasc. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. That list certainly wasn't fully comprehensive, it was just one example. A different list by PFLAG lists omnisexuality and pansexuality separately, along with a bunch of other terms. Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

And looking closer, some of the cited sources in the current version of omnisexuality (which was again unilaterally recreated) do not support the cited claims. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that too. I cut down the sources to four and even that is NOT enough to justify a page at this time. However, any good sources should, of course, be added to the Pansexuality page in the section about omnisexuality. Historyday01 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree it will take time to find sources, but you should do a deep dive into the sources *first* before creating a page. Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe that my points and comparisons with the precedents of polysexual and aro/aroace stand well enough. i do admitted that i had a misunderstanding with the drafts and i am sorry for that. but if you go against my points and delate the page, please do not redirected it pansexualty as they are two different terms. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lavender-wikigirl So what you're saying is, if omnisexuality is not notable unto itself, it should be removed entirely from Wikipedia? Sounds like you're the one making the strongest argument for outright deletion now. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

i believe that outright deletion is better then infaring pan and omni are the same. it is better to lack info then to infare falsehoods*. I am opposed to deletion but it is the better of the two(redirect/delateson).

• it does say in the page that it is different but having it redirct to pansexulty does inpliet that they are the same, as well as for people who read the top part only to get a overview will be misslead Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a third option. Working on the draft page, making it the best you can make it, then submitting it to be approved. I already mentioned the draft page in another one of my comments. Historyday01 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

also on the point on the FAQ it linked to nothing and disagreed with the page. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That was an easy fix: the section aws renamed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

the link is now fixed but that pagargh says that pansexualty and omnisexualty are diffren:

"omnisexuality may be used to describe those "attracted to people of all genders across the gender spectrum", and pansexuality may be used to describe the same people, or those attracted to people "regardless of gender". Pansexuality and omnisexuality are sometimes considered synonymous, but when a distinction is made between them, the former term emphasizes gender blindness, while the latter emphasizes the role of gender in attraction." Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Because this article is level-5 vital, I do not think any substantive change should be made to the FAQ until there is discussion and clear consensus for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

the FAQ is wrong, contradicty and harmful:

- wrong: it states that omnisexualty and pansexualty are the same, this is not true

- conterdisonerty: it contradict the page itself(see my previous point)

- harmful: saying a entire sexualty doesnt exist is erasure. see the mental health part of bi erasure

this is why it should be a high priority to delete or fix the FAQ despite the pages level. consensus is important but stopping missinofeason, and harmful content is more important. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. As said above, unless there are a sizable amount of reliable sources to justify a page, then it should simply be a redirect to this one until that certain time. A redirect is not, and never will be, the same as deletion. I have changed Omnisexuality it to a redirect. I strongly encourage you to do your own research at Draft:Omnisexuality, pulling in reliable sources (there is a lot out there, but a lot of what's out there are not reliable sources), that would be deeply appreciated. I added some possible sources to the talk page of that draft page, but there's surely more out there. There's no race to get an article like this done. Please also listen other people's advice and comments in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

the redirect doesn't work as it links to the top of the page and not the history and omnisexualty part. as i am inexperience i do not know how to fix it, i would be thankfull if you could help. Lavender-wikigirl (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I've pointed the redirect to Pansexuality#History and etymology. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)