3) I'll concede to that.orangeban said:3) Alright, but some people aren't that obvious
4) Fair point, though panromantic bisexuals is a bit of a mouthful.
And I don't see a problem with having demisexual added. Was that actually an argument against pansexuality or just a point?
I have to go, but before I'll do I'll lay down my thoughts. I don't like the term "bisexual" because I think it taps into the whole thing of society going, "You are this gender and you'll like it dammit!". Basically, I think we should split bisexuality into two groups. Strict bisexuals (attraction to people who identify and have the genitals of women and men) and pansexuals (attraction to people)
4) It can be a bit of a mouthful, depends how many people are involved...
I wasn't arguing against, just making a point; as far as demisexual goes most people see it as a laudable choice rather than an intrinsic orientation. When I first came across the time my reaction was pretty much "There's a word for that?!". I guess having so many categories can get confusing and seem pedantic, but it's not exactly as easy subject to deal with fairly. I think it;s just easier if any -sexual term is used to only refer to physical attraction, but then the most common combinations you'd get would be heteroromantic heterosexual, homoromantic homosexual and biromantic bisexual, which seems kind of redundant.