That makes a lot of sense.

but 'sex' means gender.
So pan sexual would mean all gender.

sex doesnt mean gender 

sex means sex...the physical act involving the genital or sexual
organs and often reproduction of a species..

perhaps what they should say they are is "pangender" that would make
more sense grammatically. 

but to say they are pan-sexual implies they are sexual to everything.

language is always corrupted in translation from other languages to
english .
yer picking a random word to rant about .

I've had the same feelings. I'm also kind of frustrated with sexual
orientation labels. The ancient Romans had none of that and got on
just fine. 
Oh, and I would think that pangender would mean encompassing all
genders. Also, there is a huge difference between sex and gender. As
my 6th grade health teacher would say, "Gender is what's between your
ears and sex is what's between your legs." So, gender is whether you
feel you are male or female and sex is what you physically are. And
for our purposes, if you add -sexual to the end of something it
usually relates to sexual orientation. Just a little response to
sweetfairytales.

There are actually people who are sexually attracted to inanimate
objects .. so there are in fact pansexuals.

@NikkiDee 
there are all types of persons that have fetishes yes, but typically
their fetish is to ONE thing or a class of things..not to literally
EVERYTHING

to be a pansexual a person would have to be literally turned on by
everything 

Yeah, and technically the word homosexuality could apply to feeling
sexual attraction all humans because all humans are of the 'same'
species.

It's just what people define themselves as and it has an accepted
meaning. 
Words have more than one meaning, what else is new?

Thought you were all for the evolution of language? Apparent

ly not.

Thanks, enter key.

@Lyncheh 

actually the prefix "homo" as used in that context does NOT stand for
"man" or "human" but instead stands for "SAME"  such as the term
homogeneous.

homosexual = sexual to the SAME sex = perfectly grammatical and makes
sense 

@Oroborus21 
THAT IS WHAT I JUST SAID.
Yeah, and technically the word homosexuality could apply to feeling
sexual attraction all humans because all humans are of the
'same'
species.
PLEASE ACTUALLY READ MY POST NEXT TIME instead of trying to jump in
trying to appear intelligent. I was saying exactly that, there is
NOTHING to suggest that it means 'man' or 'woman' or 'gender', so
technically 'homo' could be referring to the same SPECIES, making it
mean attracted to EVERYONE, and yet you accept the word homosexuality. 

@Lyncheh 
also I am not suggesting that a Neologism isnt appropriate for this
group or that if they feel they need to define themselves with a diff
term than any that are out there, my argument is with the particular
word they are choosing and its inaccuracy and corruption of the greek
prefix.

as has been suggested perhaps something like "philiopangender" or
"pangenderfilia" would be more accurate 

than "pansexual" 

@Oroborus21 
@Lyncheh 

@Lyncheh 
but it isnt about same species it is about same SEX, that is
understood by any renderings of definitions of "homosexuality" you
will never see any that say "same species" 

@Oroborus21 
Using that same logic, what if I found the word homosexual too
ambiguous because it's inaccurate as to what "same" thing they belong
to? Same gender is the generally accepted one for homosexual, so why
can't all gender be the generally accepted one for pansexual? It goes
the same way. 

@Oroborus21 
Why is it about the same gender?

Yeah, because that's the common usage of the word. Likewise with
pansexual. 

@Sanyu 
aw but it isnt inaccurate at all or ambiguous. the definitions of
homosexuality are completely clear.

@Sanyu 
@Lyncheh 

There are definite distinctions between sex and gender. If you
research what "pansexuals" have to say they particularly make it a
point to indicate that their are mulitiple genders (as opposed to only
two sexes plus hermaphrodites-natures oddities) and that gender is
more about the internal perception of the person and less about
exterior anatomical features.

Homosexuality does not mean (sexual attraction/activity to same
gender, it means to same sex). That is why. 

wow i never even new people called theme selfs pansexual but now i do
and now i no they are worng wow it really is ture u learn somthing new
every day, and ur "rant" was really imformative XD

@Oroborus21 
Yes, it is ambiguous, just because it's commonly used and has been for
a time doesn't mean it's any less ambiguous as to what they have in
common. It's just frequently assumed that it's their gender they have
in common. So why can't it be automatically assumed that it's all
genders someone is attracted to? Same "gender", all "gender". The only
word that lends to it being of GENDERs is the sexual part, so
homosexual could, technically, mean sex (sexual) with someone with the
same (homo) gender IQ, eye colour, hair colour, skin tone,
ethnicity, shoe size. But it isn't, it's with someone of the same
gender. So just pansexuality the same benefit of the doubt and let it
be all-genders. 

@kimmie35 
thank you kimmie, (unless that was sarcastic lol)

ikr.....sooo informative

*bats eyes at alex n sanyu* 

@kimmie35 
No, they aren't wrong. Unless you want me to start suggesting that you
shouldn't label yourself straight, have a bit of respect for what
people consider themselves, instead of alienating people based on some
incoherent hypocritical (frequent use of 'pedophile' without 'erotica'
anyone?) ramblings. 

@Oroborus21 
lol no it was sarcastic

@Lyncheh 
and to be honest i dont care wt you say ur intiteld to your veiws and
im intiteld to mine 

@kimmie35 
NO DAMN IT I MENT WASNT, WASNT I TELL U WASNT, NOT WAS BUT WASNT 

So, Eddie. What am I if I'm asexual? Unable to have sex? Attracted to
people who don't have sex? Attracted to people without sexual organs?

@kimmie35 
Having a "view" that someone is wrong? They're either wrong or they're
not, and in this case it's a personal choice how they perceive this
word, you're not entitled to telling someone their choices are wrong. 

@Sanyu 

again Sex does not equal Gender

let's look at this in the broader context of other "sexualities" 

Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality[1]) in its broadest sense,
describes lack of sexual attraction,[2][3] or interest in or desire
for sex.[4] Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual
orientation.[5] One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of
asexuality at 1%

Bisexuality is sexual behavior with[1] or physical attraction to both
sexes (male and female), or a bisexual orientation. 

Homosexuality is the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among
members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition

Heterosexuality consists of sexual behavior, practices, and identity
predicated on preference or desire for the opposite sex


A monosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to one sex (or
gender) only, monosexuality being the corresponding sexual
orientation. A monosexual can be either heterosexual or homosexual.

The term is fairly uncommon, mostly used in discussions of bisexuality
to denote everyone other than bisexuals/pansexuals (with the exception
of asexuals, who are not sexually attracted to any gender). It was
likely adopted in place of unisexual, which is already used in biology
and would produce confusion. It is often considered derogatory by the
people to whom it is applied,[1] and is not in common use as a
self-label by either straight or gay people.

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality[1] is a sexual orientation
characterized by the potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic
love, or sexual desire towards people, regardless of their gender
identity or biological sex. Some pansexuals suggest that they are
gender-blind; that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in
determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.[2] For
others, an individual's sex, gender expression, or gender identity can
be a key factor of attraction, despite the pansexual individual's wide
range of sex and gender attractions.

The word pansexual is derived from the Greek prefix pan-, meaning
"all". In its simplest form, pansexuality denotes the potential of
sexual attraction to all genders and beings. It is intended to negate
the idea of two genders (as expressed by bi-)

Polysexuality refers to people who are attracted to more than one
gender or sex but do not wish to identify as bisexual because it
implies that there are only two binary genders or sexes. Polysexuals
are those people sexually attracted to many different sorts of ideas,
ethnic groups, and characteristics

Pomosexual is a portmanteau of postmodernism abbreviated to pomo and
sexual; it is a neologism used to describe a person who shuns sexual
orientation labels (such as heterosexual and homosexual), and in turn
chooses not to label oneself with a sexual orientation

Zoosexuality is a term used to describe a sexual orientation towards
non-human animals. It has become more commonly referenced in
scientific research literature since Hani Miletski's research into the
field in the 1990s. It has become the accepted term[according to
whom?] to describe an orientation towards animals within the sciences
of anthrozoology, sexology and psychology

.....

as can be seen from the above all of the other sexualities with the
exception of PANsexuality are appropriate/accurate renderings of their
meanings.

Only Pansexuality is inaccurate. As noted in the definition it implies
sexual attraction 

cont. 

to all BEINGS (actually more broadly includes all things animate and
inanimate).

So unless Pansexuals are willing to admit that they are attracted to
all beings:
INCLUDING,

-infants/babies (infantophilia)
-prepubescent children (pedophilia)
-pubescent adolescents/teens (hebephilia)
-animals (bestiality/zoosexual)
etc.

then they cannot accurately claim to be PAN sexual. end of
discussion.

they need to get a new term

@Sanyu 

a sexual is appropriate and accurate definition. "A" being among many
meanings including "without" or the "nonexistence of"

so if you or someone described themselves with that term and it was
the case it wouldnt be a corruption of the word or prefix.

again, my argument isnt with the people themselves nor do i personally
have anything against so-called pansexuals.

My argument as I stated at the outset is with the adoption and
subsequent corruption of the meaning of the word.

Yes language is evolutionary but even evolution has to make sense. 

It does make sense. All "genders", both "genders", same "gender"...
It's all implied and it is accurate enough in the contextual setting.
If you want me to use pansexual in your context, you use homosexual in
mine, and call people who have sexual relations with ANYONE with a
common trait (doesn't have to be gender) a homosexual. It's the same
damn thing. I was reading your description up there of pansexual and
nodding and getting excited, only to read "IT'S INACCURATE" at the
bottom. No it damn well isn't.

*hetero = used in terms of sex
homo = used in terms of sex
bi = used in terms of sex
pan = USED IN TERMS OF SEX

@Sanyu 

i dont mean to suggest that the description (which is from wikipedia
btw) is inaccurate as far as reflecting their lifestyle

what is inaccurate is the use of the greek prefix PAN which means
"all" or "Everything" in conjunction with sexual....as applied to that
lifestyle.

that is what is inaccurate. Again i would suggest what would be more
accurate would be a term such as "pangenderphilia" 

@Lyncheh 

thank you , im so glad you see my point now and understand that it is
inaccurate because it they dont mean it in terms of SEX they mean it
in terms of pangender!

if they meant it in terms of SEX, they would mean "Sexual to All
Beings/things"
which would include bestiality, pedophilia, hebephilia, infantophilia,
etc. etc.

exactly my point..

the term is accurate to the others but NOT to pansexuality when you
understand what pansexuality actually is.

thank you. 

And the use of the prefix "same" (that is ALL it implies, nothing
else, just "same") in conjunction with sexual is accurate. How is that
different from the prefix for "all"? If you can imply that homosexuals
are interested in the same GENDER, why not imply that pansexuals are
interested in all GENDERS? I don't get why it's different at
all. It is not.

@Oroborus21 
Sex as in what sexual identity people have. 

You know you have a shit argument when you deliberately twist words
when you full well know the intended meaning. 

you keep confusing gender and sex

homosexuality does not equal attraction to same gender!
homosexuality = attraction to same sex

how can that not be any more clear?

and this is why people who have adopted the term pansexual think they
are accurately describing their condition but they are not.

sexual = sex

bi= sex to both sexes
a = without sex
mono = sex to one (derogatory)
poly = sex to many
homo = sex to same sex (NOT gender)
hetero = sex to different sex or the opposite sex
pedo = sex to children
hebe = sex to teens
infanto = sex to infants
geron = sex to old people

pan = (should equal) sex to ALL sexes/beings

but it DOES NOT, they (the pansexuals) mean to say they are attracted
to all persons regardless of gender...they are confusing the meaning
of the language that is my point...

instead of the term pansexual which implies SEX TO ALL THINGS

they should use a terms such as: pangenderphilia or pangendersexual

I don't think evolution has to make sense. Especially in language,
where many odd twists and turns have taken place. Look up the
etymology of eyelash for a particularly knotted route.

Heterosexuality - Different+sexuality.
Homosexuality - Same+sexuality.
Asexuality - Without+sexuality.
Bisexuality - Two+sexuality.
Pansexuality - All+sexuality.

I think there's sense there. While pansexuality might be taken
literally to mean sexual desire for everything possible, I don't think
that's an assumption anyone rational would make based on the above
sequence. If one did, one would also have to concede heterosexuality
to mean anything different (including all of the nice illegal
sexualities).

Adding in zoosexuality seems to complicate things, but I'd hasten to
add that this is an exception. Most paraphilias are given words in
keeping with the traditional construction of disorders (infantophilia,
paedophilia). Or different words entirely (bestiality). 'Sex' seems to
refer by default to inter-human congress. And if you think about that,
it makes sense, what with sexual and asexual reproduction and all.

I don't really want to delve any further into the word 'sex' though,
because that's quite thorny by itself. Suffice to say, the word 'sex'
is quite inappropriate for most usages outside of heterosexuality
anyway.

@neoeno 
good comment,

to my mind (and granted yes this is beyond the ken of most people), 

"pansexuality" is so overbroad that it is inaccurate which is my only
point with my rant about it. it only gets more confusing when you look
into what the users of the term, those that self identify have to say
about it, because it turns out they arent actually talking about sex
with all things after all they are talking about sex with all beings
regardless of gender.

yes, am i being pedantic with my argument, indeed i am. 

and I understand im tilting at windmills here.

I dont really care much except to me it seems like this group has
latched onto a term (misapplying it) in an attempt to be "fashionable"
or at least that is how it appears to me and for some reason I find
that irksome.

Also since the term Oroborus is dear to my heart and it refers
classically to: "Hen to Pan" I find it additionally irksome to see the
greek prefix corrupted this way. 

Fashionable huh? I used it like 4 years ago in an attempt to be not
fashionable, but non-discriminative and a little more ACCURATE (God
forbid huh, with its broadness and all) than simply stating bisexual.
I've learned more and more though so I don't use the term anymore.
Today I learned the term "biromantic". I think I'll use it, as I'm
obviously into biro pens. ♥

@Oroborus21 

I dunno, I quite like the word pansexual. Although the concept it
describes seems quite problematic, though, since I'm not sure any of
us can really call ourselves gender-blind. I think it is one of those
terms that identification as such implies aspiring to be it rather
than actually being it. In that sense, I am pansexual. 

Regardless of the correctness of the word, it seems to me that
pansexuality is the only word possible for this. Pangenderphilia is
too unwieldy and also references the paraphilia/disorder naming
tradition, which I doubt pansexuals would be comfortable with. The
gender/sex distinction is also quite thorny when it comes to sexuality
(some straight males are comfortable with desire for varying degrees
of transgenders/transsexuals, whereas others would blanch at the idea,
does this make the former heterogenderphilias?)

Pansexuality also has the nice effect of counterbalancing the 'sec'
(to mean division) of sexuality. Though this does make it a bit
redundant (all-sections), that's something we have to live with. 

@neoeno 

i would prefer if in this 21st Century we could simply get away from
all such labels entirely.

as someone mentioned in roman times such labels were not used

and as i was reading today about Leonardo da Vinci, the term
homosexuality wasnt in usage in his day.

personally, i think by striving to get away from such labeling
entirely we might work towards a more tolerant and openminded society
towards those outside the so-called norm. 

It would be nice to get away from the close-mindedness, but I don't
think abolishing labels is the path to take to accomplish it. I think
abolishing labels would more likely be a result of it. Right now,
perhaps it's important that people communicate that they're into this
that and the other to make clear their intentions. Some people are
still offended by a member of the same sex flirting with them, which
has to go before terms can be taken less seriously and then be made
redundant, I guess?

@Sanyu 

that raises an interesting question about the power of language. I
believe that language can have the power to influence societal views.

In my own lifetime, the widespread adoption and use of the term "gay"
instead of homosexual has, I believe, been very influential in the
greater acceptance of such ones. (Not solely of course, there have
been numerous other facets of life that have also lead to this from
the media portrayals and portrayals in entertanment to law to even the
AIDs epidemic.)

I think to a lesser extent the disfavouring of the term "Nigger" could
also be held up as another example of the power of language and how it
shapes societal viewpoint.

So while yes, it would seem that society has to change before such
things as terms can be rendered obsolete, I would argue that if you
get enough people to cooperate in their use of language that it can
come before and help change society.

In terms of EASE it certainly is easier to disuse or adopt a change in
language than it is to change underlying beliefs, values, attitudes,
etc. so why not start there. 

Fair enough, that makes identifying my sexuality a lot easier 
I don't have to! Otherwise, biromantic ftw.

Sex can mean gender.

If someone asks you, what's your sex?
They obviously mean gender.

@Oroborus21 
I would have thought pansexual meant being able to love
everything and anything. Why are you so worked up over something
people want to call themselves? You're a little obsessed with being
right 24/7. 

I think it's heteronormativity that enforces these labels. Many
heterosexual ('straight'? as in 'going straight'? Hmm) (or 'the great
flavourless' as I like to call them) people fear the homosexual
assault upon their fragile sexuality. Plus, few people like to even
discuss it, and especially with my generation it is incredibly
important that people discuss it. It's alarming how many women I know
that are straight up traumatised by the sexuality of the men they've
been with. It's a frightening trend.

Anyway, I'm getting off of the point. There are societal reasons that
these words exist and are required (not that I approve, but that's the
way it is). I would think it would be far easier to change attitudes
rather than words. You mentioned 'nigger', don't forget that 'nigger'
was used as a weapon by the civil rights (for want of a better phrase)
to change society to how they wanted it to be. As such, your
disapproval of the new terms (as reclaiming 'gay' has failed and
reclaiming 'faggot' doesn't seem to be working, not that these are
great terms) could be seen as oppressive. Self-definition is an
important and viciously defended right, because if you don't
vigorously define yourself then other people are going to. (Perhaps
"I'm not emo!" is part of being emo).

You might be interested in what the queer movement is doing. (I dunno
how well versed you are on semiotics so forgive me if I simplify a
bit: Every word is made up of two parts: a signifier and a signified.
The signifier is the word itself, and the signified is what it refers
to. So imagine a box has a marble in it and a label saying 'marble' on
it. 'Marble' is the signifier, and the marble is the signified. Kinda.
Anyway...) When one defines oneself as queer, they put their sexuality
in a place of nondefinition. 'Queer' is a signifier without a
signified. The point isn't to make people guess, because if they did
there wouldn't be a right answer (or at least, if there were, the
queer person wouldn't know about it.)