I read the article, but I must be denser than most -- I don't really get the difference other than it includes transsexuals and gender benders.
At least "pansexual": doesn't include animals or incest!!!
Please don't misinterpret what I am saying here, but the definition for pansexual given includes "ALL" sexual acts concerning humans. That seems to be the only qualifier is that both living organisms be human.
Does it include age related sexual preferences specifically targeted to infancy to people who are. Does this mean that a pansexual may be sexually attracted to a three year old "if the vibes are just right." or any other age that minors fall in?
If it literally means that a person can be sexually attracted to anyone and everyone if the "vibes are just right." I have a major problem. There are some standards that I believe are more important that a person's sexual attractions. Relationships between a human and another human are always wrong if they are not on an equal footing. If one of the partners is not willing or as defined by law not legally able to make that decision, then it is wrong, not some of the time, but always wrong.
Now if two adults of legal age, both of sound mind and both free to leave the relationship at will and have the "vibes just right, I don't worry about labels. We have too many labels now.
I really can't see why the term bi can't cover all the legal attractions.
According to biologists we all have a gender when studying our DNA. There have been women born naturally as women who have been bared from the Olympics because there levels of testosterone and other tests showed "male" even though they naturally have boobs and a vagina. The doctors say that these persons should have been born men. I am not getting into that issue except to say, there are criteria to determine if a person is male or female.
I know that there are people who are guys who believe they are women with penises. Legally they can be classified as either if that is the wish of the nation making the laws. I see the problem of a physically a man using the women's restroom because inside he is a woman. I can see how other women could be freaked out about that if they don't know the circumstances.
But the guy is still a gender. We can classify this person as a male or as a female. But I hardly would think this person wants to be known as a third gender. If the person has the surgery then there is no question that this person is totally female, not something else.
I know good intentions were meant by having this new defined termed. But I see some real legal and cultural problems if a new neighbor moved into the neighborhood and is a pansexual. The neighbors go and check out this word and it basically says attraction to any other humans and there you go, a petition is up and going to rid the neighborhood of this person el pronto.
In closing, I doubt the writers who coined this term were meaning to include pedophilia but according to this broad definition, they just did.
Had they included the word adult in the definition, I could have bought it.