This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender and sexual identities template. |
|
Psychology Template‑class | |||||||
|
LGBT studies Template‑class | |||||||
|
You have homosexuality in there twice. Atom 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This template makes me feel uneasy. For one, it distinguishes certain intersex conditions as being different sexes and not describing different conditions; are you going to list all intersex conditions as being different sexes? Is this even an appropriate and correct usage? How are you defining "sex", here, in your categorization? By the sexual identity article, listing sexes doesn't seem to be part of sexual identities, something which relates to sexual orientation; even that article notes that the term's usage isn't quite clear and unambiguous. Listing various topics relating to gender then, by use of the primary definition on that article, would thus be incorrect. The overall impression one gets is that the template is quite confused. Dysprosia 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned that on his talk page. I think that this template still needs alot of thought and work. My impression is that the emphasis was on getting a template out there, and working out the details of what ought to be on it later. If I had a clear picture of what its purpose was, I could be more constructive in suggesting how it could be changed.
From looking at it, we start with "sexual orientations". I suppose that could be useful, but it puts Anthrosexuality and pansexuality, which are essentially the same thing, on this list, even though are lower in incidence, as is asexuality. "queer" isn't a sexual orientation, it is terminology that used by a portion of people who either are, or identify as homosexual.
There are a list of the sexes. Which most people are familiar with as male and female. There are intersex peoples, but again this is a low incidence in the population, and yet intersex, and unusual (low incidence) variations of male and female are listed. SO, this reference might be good for someone in biology, or in certain areas of medicine, but not really a reference that most people would use. It would be good material for a wikipedia article on intersexuality, or a template just for intersexuality related articles.
The Gender category throws in some of the other terms. I can see how these would be useful in certain gender related articles, such as "transgenderism". I'm not sure people who saw value to this category would get use out of the other categories.
In "other" category: homosexuality and transgender is listed, even though both were previously listed. Polyamory is listed, and so need for "polyamorous", but polygamy, polyandry and polygyny aren't listed. If they were, I am not sure how they would relate to the other categories.
I think the approach of a templte in search of articles that had some marginal relationship is probably not the best. A better aproach would be to identify a series of related articles, and then list terminology they have in common, and/or pointing to one another in a template (a brief, small template).
So far the "STD/STI" template comes the closest to fitting the bill on this. The "Sex" template is too expansive and non specific.
Atom 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have concerns about the template title. The various aneuploidies (and gonadal dysgenesis) listed for "sexes" have little to do with "sexual identity". Or, if you want to keep the title, it is more appropriate to replace the "sexes" section with male and female. Of course, even then, the title should be "Human sexual identities". Ted Talk/ Contributions 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to have the various chromosomal variations that cause male vs. female in a template for Sexual Identities. If there are no objections, I will replace them with Female, Male, Man, Woman, Intersexuality. Those articles may or may not refer to the various chromosomal abnormalities. Ted Talk/ Contributions 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem. Although the chromosomal differences may have intrerest for some people (biologist/scientists) I don't see that being useful to the majority of readers. Atom 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the "Gender identities" section contains male, female, and intersex? These are biological states and, for example, many intersex traits are tested prenatally and/or via preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Gender identities don't become apparent from around age 3 years. Nsw2042 ( talk) 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, regarding this edit you made, see what Newsoas (Nsw2042) stated above. I don't feel strongly either way on that change. But Newsoas and Trankuility probably do. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
See Top and bottom in sex and BDSM ( talk) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
... and I'm really wondering when it was that "pimp", "Geesha girl", "porn star", "prostitute", and "sex offender" became sexual identities. I'm not interested in arguing over whether they might be seen or might be interpreted as sexual identities (which claims smell rather strongly of OR). All I ask is some authoritative references that, for example, pimps (or even some pimps) feel that their involvement in the sex industry is not merely what they do for money but fundamentally woven into their sexuality and personal identity.
These are all very bold claims that require bold evidence; and the claim that "sex offender", in particular, constitutes a sexual identity is on the border between the extraordinary and the bizarre. I'll accept the claims if the evidence is provided, but only if. -- 7Kim ( talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'Technosexuality' from the template, and also intend to remove 'Same Gender Loving'. Technosexuality seems analogous to metrosexual, which isn't on the list. If anything, it's a fetish, and description '1' on the page doesn't even go that far. The other descriptors are words for people that: - Do not experience sexual attraction - Are sexually attracted to the same sex - Are sexually attracted to the opposite sex - Are attracted to people of either sex as well as to people with a non-binary gender identity.
Same gender loving is likewise inappropriate because it is a nonce-term. If we are going to include synonyms and slang, then the template will quickly become useless. Leoniceno ( talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
if the other template is locked with anthrosexual on it, this one should include it too for uniformal purposes. Reverting back, please provide a reason for why it shouldn't be on.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry ... carry on with your day. Dybryd ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to return the template to the structure it had before User0529 moved things around. I'm sorry, but the one word "cleanup" is not an adequate explanation for grossly changing the template's conceptual organisation. If User0529 would care to describe the new organisation that was intended, I'm certain we can probably reach a consensus. Who knows, e may actually have a better idea than I do. -- 7Kim ( talk) 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Also, I moved Evening people to the "Other" line; the content of the article gives no strong indication whether "evening people" is an internally affirmed identity or an externally applied characterisation. -- 7Kim ( talk) 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Please include Queer heterosexual at the appropriate place. ( 59.180.139.63 ( talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. So as not to erase page histories, I have not renamed the template page nor its talk page. Only the box titles have been corrected. --
CJ Withers (
talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I initially made the edit, then realized I didn't discuss the change here. I'd like to add Bigender to Third sex/Third gender category. I believe it qualifies. Please advise. MisterBixby ( talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been no response to this. I will add bigender to the template MisterBixby ( talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What about Girlfags and Guydykes? If no one objects, I'll include them in this template as gender identities. -- RedZiz ( talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It says in the Sworn virgin article that there are "fewer than 100 sworn virgins in the world", according to National Geographic, while the article Albanian sworn virgins (sworn virgins are confined to Albania and nearby areas) states "Currently there are fewer than forty sworn virgins left in Albania, and a few in neighboring countries" and they are dying out. This seems to me to be a really, really marginal community. I propose to d delete it from the template, any objections? Herostratus ( talk) 02:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
" Genderfuck" seems (at least according to the article) be a political position rather than an identity. It is "the conscious effort to mock... traditional notions of gender identity... Often, parody and exaggeration are used to transgress gender roles, usually to expose them as artificial...". This is political/social theater rather than an inner identity, as confirmed later: "Genderfuck is a politics of identity stemming from the identity politics movements.... The term dates [to] an article by Christopher Lonc... Lonc wrote 'I want to criticize and poke fun at the roles of women and of men too.... I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive sex roles and sexual identification.'"
This is political theatre and is no more an identity than being a member of the Capitol Steps or the Bread and Puppet Theatre and so forth is an identity. For this reason I've removed the entry. Herostratus ( talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Template talk:LGBT#What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT about whether this template should continue as a separate template, or be subsumed into {{ LGBT}}. This was prompted because a recent edit copied most of this template into LGBT, so the question is whether to complete the merge, or to take the content back out of that template. If you are interested, please contribute on that template's talk page. Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong but is Futanari really a gender identity. It seems from the article to be more of a trait of Japanese art.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Copied here from Portal talk:Gender studies -- John of Reading ( talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
But the big "Gender and Sexual identities" navbox does not seem to have any entry for the xx/xy/xxy/etc. chromosomal aspect of sexual identification. Shouldn't this be added? 192.249.47.186 ( talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Respected Wikipedians,
The articles for Female & Male contain information on the "physiological sexes". Gender information for the human genders is included at Woman & Man, respectively. See also: our article on Sex and gender distinction.
As the template covers "Gender and sexual identities", I consider that it might be more useful to the reader for us to replace the "physiological sex" articles in the Gender section of the template with those covering the respective genders. For consistency, we would also add the template to the Woman & Man articles.
Please advise if there are any concerns with these proposed changes. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week.
Apologies if the language used is insensitive; it is taken directly from the articles referenced - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Respected Wikipedians,
The articles for Womyn contains information on the alternate spellings of "women". Gender information for the human gender is included at Woman only.
While I agree that the use of "womyn" as an alternative spelling is an important concept for us to include in the encyclopedia, I am not certain that it sufficiently relates to gender and sexual identities to be included in this template. Therefore, I suggest removing it. The template is not present on the article itself.
Please advise if there are any concerns with this proposed change. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that there are no objections above, this change has now been made. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Fellow editors,
I notice looking at the Template that there are a number of links to articles on "Transgender people in nation" - e.g. Transgender people in Singapore. While these are obviously important articles, and I believe that they should be included in a Template; especially as they help to address systemic bias towards first world perspectives; they feel a little unwieldy for inclusion in this Template. They also may not strictly fit, as currently positioned, into the Third sex / Third gender subsection of the Template.
I am interested in other editors opinions on whether we should:
Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Fellow Editors, Thoughts on adding Femininity & Masculinity to the Gender identities section? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
title. much of what's in “gender” now feels like it could very well be in the “third gender” section.
also: given that there's a separate “binary” category for sexual orientation, why shouldn't there be one for gender? — mountainhead / ? 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Лорд Алекс, regarding this (followup note here), analloerotic/analloeroticism should not be listed on this template as a sexual orientation. It is not defined as a sexual orientation (not usually anyway). If ever it is, it's in relation to asexuality, which may or may not be described as a sexual orientation by sources. Scholars still debate even classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation, but it is at least a common enough term/concept to be on the template as a sexual orientation listing. As noted at Talk:Analloerotic (not sure why you changed the title of that page, but I'll address that there), it is hard to see analloerotic as distinct from asexuality (despite one author's claim). And as also seen there, editors feel that it should be merged into the Asexuality article. Besides all of that, this template is clear that we are trying to keep this template consistent with the related templates it points to. It would be odd to have analloerotic on this template, but not on the others. And, no, that doesn't mean that it should be added to the others as well. Like I stated, it is a barely used term and a barely studied/dubiously distinct concept. Just like autoeroticism, which is also related to asexuality, it doesn't belong on this template as a sexual orientation. If you want to add it in the "Other" field of the "Sexual orientation identities" section of the template, I wouldn't object to that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In general this template is a bit messy. -sche ( talk) 03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello All, as part of Wiki Loves Pride I began a stub for pinapinaaine from Tuvalu and I wondered if the term could be added to the template alongside fa'afafine, etc.? Many thanks, Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender and sexual identities template. |
|
Psychology Template‑class | |||||||
|
LGBT studies Template‑class | |||||||
|
You have homosexuality in there twice. Atom 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This template makes me feel uneasy. For one, it distinguishes certain intersex conditions as being different sexes and not describing different conditions; are you going to list all intersex conditions as being different sexes? Is this even an appropriate and correct usage? How are you defining "sex", here, in your categorization? By the sexual identity article, listing sexes doesn't seem to be part of sexual identities, something which relates to sexual orientation; even that article notes that the term's usage isn't quite clear and unambiguous. Listing various topics relating to gender then, by use of the primary definition on that article, would thus be incorrect. The overall impression one gets is that the template is quite confused. Dysprosia 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned that on his talk page. I think that this template still needs alot of thought and work. My impression is that the emphasis was on getting a template out there, and working out the details of what ought to be on it later. If I had a clear picture of what its purpose was, I could be more constructive in suggesting how it could be changed.
From looking at it, we start with "sexual orientations". I suppose that could be useful, but it puts Anthrosexuality and pansexuality, which are essentially the same thing, on this list, even though are lower in incidence, as is asexuality. "queer" isn't a sexual orientation, it is terminology that used by a portion of people who either are, or identify as homosexual.
There are a list of the sexes. Which most people are familiar with as male and female. There are intersex peoples, but again this is a low incidence in the population, and yet intersex, and unusual (low incidence) variations of male and female are listed. SO, this reference might be good for someone in biology, or in certain areas of medicine, but not really a reference that most people would use. It would be good material for a wikipedia article on intersexuality, or a template just for intersexuality related articles.
The Gender category throws in some of the other terms. I can see how these would be useful in certain gender related articles, such as "transgenderism". I'm not sure people who saw value to this category would get use out of the other categories.
In "other" category: homosexuality and transgender is listed, even though both were previously listed. Polyamory is listed, and so need for "polyamorous", but polygamy, polyandry and polygyny aren't listed. If they were, I am not sure how they would relate to the other categories.
I think the approach of a templte in search of articles that had some marginal relationship is probably not the best. A better aproach would be to identify a series of related articles, and then list terminology they have in common, and/or pointing to one another in a template (a brief, small template).
So far the "STD/STI" template comes the closest to fitting the bill on this. The "Sex" template is too expansive and non specific.
Atom 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have concerns about the template title. The various aneuploidies (and gonadal dysgenesis) listed for "sexes" have little to do with "sexual identity". Or, if you want to keep the title, it is more appropriate to replace the "sexes" section with male and female. Of course, even then, the title should be "Human sexual identities". Ted Talk/ Contributions 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to have the various chromosomal variations that cause male vs. female in a template for Sexual Identities. If there are no objections, I will replace them with Female, Male, Man, Woman, Intersexuality. Those articles may or may not refer to the various chromosomal abnormalities. Ted Talk/ Contributions 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem. Although the chromosomal differences may have intrerest for some people (biologist/scientists) I don't see that being useful to the majority of readers. Atom 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the "Gender identities" section contains male, female, and intersex? These are biological states and, for example, many intersex traits are tested prenatally and/or via preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Gender identities don't become apparent from around age 3 years. Nsw2042 ( talk) 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, regarding this edit you made, see what Newsoas (Nsw2042) stated above. I don't feel strongly either way on that change. But Newsoas and Trankuility probably do. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
See Top and bottom in sex and BDSM ( talk) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
... and I'm really wondering when it was that "pimp", "Geesha girl", "porn star", "prostitute", and "sex offender" became sexual identities. I'm not interested in arguing over whether they might be seen or might be interpreted as sexual identities (which claims smell rather strongly of OR). All I ask is some authoritative references that, for example, pimps (or even some pimps) feel that their involvement in the sex industry is not merely what they do for money but fundamentally woven into their sexuality and personal identity.
These are all very bold claims that require bold evidence; and the claim that "sex offender", in particular, constitutes a sexual identity is on the border between the extraordinary and the bizarre. I'll accept the claims if the evidence is provided, but only if. -- 7Kim ( talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'Technosexuality' from the template, and also intend to remove 'Same Gender Loving'. Technosexuality seems analogous to metrosexual, which isn't on the list. If anything, it's a fetish, and description '1' on the page doesn't even go that far. The other descriptors are words for people that: - Do not experience sexual attraction - Are sexually attracted to the same sex - Are sexually attracted to the opposite sex - Are attracted to people of either sex as well as to people with a non-binary gender identity.
Same gender loving is likewise inappropriate because it is a nonce-term. If we are going to include synonyms and slang, then the template will quickly become useless. Leoniceno ( talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
if the other template is locked with anthrosexual on it, this one should include it too for uniformal purposes. Reverting back, please provide a reason for why it shouldn't be on.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry ... carry on with your day. Dybryd ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to return the template to the structure it had before User0529 moved things around. I'm sorry, but the one word "cleanup" is not an adequate explanation for grossly changing the template's conceptual organisation. If User0529 would care to describe the new organisation that was intended, I'm certain we can probably reach a consensus. Who knows, e may actually have a better idea than I do. -- 7Kim ( talk) 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Also, I moved Evening people to the "Other" line; the content of the article gives no strong indication whether "evening people" is an internally affirmed identity or an externally applied characterisation. -- 7Kim ( talk) 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Please include Queer heterosexual at the appropriate place. ( 59.180.139.63 ( talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. So as not to erase page histories, I have not renamed the template page nor its talk page. Only the box titles have been corrected. --
CJ Withers (
talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I initially made the edit, then realized I didn't discuss the change here. I'd like to add Bigender to Third sex/Third gender category. I believe it qualifies. Please advise. MisterBixby ( talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been no response to this. I will add bigender to the template MisterBixby ( talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What about Girlfags and Guydykes? If no one objects, I'll include them in this template as gender identities. -- RedZiz ( talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It says in the Sworn virgin article that there are "fewer than 100 sworn virgins in the world", according to National Geographic, while the article Albanian sworn virgins (sworn virgins are confined to Albania and nearby areas) states "Currently there are fewer than forty sworn virgins left in Albania, and a few in neighboring countries" and they are dying out. This seems to me to be a really, really marginal community. I propose to d delete it from the template, any objections? Herostratus ( talk) 02:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
" Genderfuck" seems (at least according to the article) be a political position rather than an identity. It is "the conscious effort to mock... traditional notions of gender identity... Often, parody and exaggeration are used to transgress gender roles, usually to expose them as artificial...". This is political/social theater rather than an inner identity, as confirmed later: "Genderfuck is a politics of identity stemming from the identity politics movements.... The term dates [to] an article by Christopher Lonc... Lonc wrote 'I want to criticize and poke fun at the roles of women and of men too.... I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive sex roles and sexual identification.'"
This is political theatre and is no more an identity than being a member of the Capitol Steps or the Bread and Puppet Theatre and so forth is an identity. For this reason I've removed the entry. Herostratus ( talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Template talk:LGBT#What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT about whether this template should continue as a separate template, or be subsumed into {{ LGBT}}. This was prompted because a recent edit copied most of this template into LGBT, so the question is whether to complete the merge, or to take the content back out of that template. If you are interested, please contribute on that template's talk page. Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong but is Futanari really a gender identity. It seems from the article to be more of a trait of Japanese art.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Copied here from Portal talk:Gender studies -- John of Reading ( talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
But the big "Gender and Sexual identities" navbox does not seem to have any entry for the xx/xy/xxy/etc. chromosomal aspect of sexual identification. Shouldn't this be added? 192.249.47.186 ( talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Respected Wikipedians,
The articles for Female & Male contain information on the "physiological sexes". Gender information for the human genders is included at Woman & Man, respectively. See also: our article on Sex and gender distinction.
As the template covers "Gender and sexual identities", I consider that it might be more useful to the reader for us to replace the "physiological sex" articles in the Gender section of the template with those covering the respective genders. For consistency, we would also add the template to the Woman & Man articles.
Please advise if there are any concerns with these proposed changes. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week.
Apologies if the language used is insensitive; it is taken directly from the articles referenced - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Respected Wikipedians,
The articles for Womyn contains information on the alternate spellings of "women". Gender information for the human gender is included at Woman only.
While I agree that the use of "womyn" as an alternative spelling is an important concept for us to include in the encyclopedia, I am not certain that it sufficiently relates to gender and sexual identities to be included in this template. Therefore, I suggest removing it. The template is not present on the article itself.
Please advise if there are any concerns with this proposed change. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
On the basis that there are no objections above, this change has now been made. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Fellow editors,
I notice looking at the Template that there are a number of links to articles on "Transgender people in nation" - e.g. Transgender people in Singapore. While these are obviously important articles, and I believe that they should be included in a Template; especially as they help to address systemic bias towards first world perspectives; they feel a little unwieldy for inclusion in this Template. They also may not strictly fit, as currently positioned, into the Third sex / Third gender subsection of the Template.
I am interested in other editors opinions on whether we should:
Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Fellow Editors, Thoughts on adding Femininity & Masculinity to the Gender identities section? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
title. much of what's in “gender” now feels like it could very well be in the “third gender” section.
also: given that there's a separate “binary” category for sexual orientation, why shouldn't there be one for gender? — mountainhead / ? 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Лорд Алекс, regarding this (followup note here), analloerotic/analloeroticism should not be listed on this template as a sexual orientation. It is not defined as a sexual orientation (not usually anyway). If ever it is, it's in relation to asexuality, which may or may not be described as a sexual orientation by sources. Scholars still debate even classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation, but it is at least a common enough term/concept to be on the template as a sexual orientation listing. As noted at Talk:Analloerotic (not sure why you changed the title of that page, but I'll address that there), it is hard to see analloerotic as distinct from asexuality (despite one author's claim). And as also seen there, editors feel that it should be merged into the Asexuality article. Besides all of that, this template is clear that we are trying to keep this template consistent with the related templates it points to. It would be odd to have analloerotic on this template, but not on the others. And, no, that doesn't mean that it should be added to the others as well. Like I stated, it is a barely used term and a barely studied/dubiously distinct concept. Just like autoeroticism, which is also related to asexuality, it doesn't belong on this template as a sexual orientation. If you want to add it in the "Other" field of the "Sexual orientation identities" section of the template, I wouldn't object to that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In general this template is a bit messy. -sche ( talk) 03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello All, as part of Wiki Loves Pride I began a stub for pinapinaaine from Tuvalu and I wondered if the term could be added to the template alongside fa'afafine, etc.? Many thanks, Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)