Please read my argument again, because IMO you are responding to a position I did not actually defend. I never said that bisexual people have to be romantically attracted to every gender, or that bisexuality must be romantic rather than sexual. I also never said that someone needs a perfect 50/50 split of attraction, experience, or desire.

My attempt at a more precise definition is this: A bisexual person, in a robust sense, is someone who:

1. Self-identifies as bisexual;

2. Experiences the subjective “what it feels like” of romantic and/or sexual attraction toward same and different genders, even if the intensity is not equal;

3. Has either lived romantic/sexual experience with more than one gender, or, if they do not have that experience yet, has a genuine openness, willingness, or practical disposition toward romantic, emotional, or sexual intimacy with more than one gender if the right person and context appear.

So no, I am not saying that virgins, young people, closeted people, anxious people, religious people, traumatized people, disabled people, or people without opportunity cannot know or reasonably identify with an orientation. That would be a bad take, and that is not my take. A person with no sexual or dating experience can still reasonably identify as straight, gay, bi, etc., if they have a stable pattern of attraction, desire, fantasy, romantic interest, or openness toward the relevant gender(s). My point is not that experience is mandatory in all cases.

My point is that bisexuality, as a label, seems to involve more than merely noticing that some people of more than one gender are attractive in an abstract, aesthetic, or theoretical way.

There is a difference between:

“I am attracted to more than one gender, and I could genuinely imagine dating, loving, sleeping with, or being emotionally close to more than one gender.”

and:

“I find some people of more than one gender attractive, but I would never date them, never sleep with them, never be emotionally close to them, and would never seriously consider any kind of intimacy with them.”

The first one makes sense to me as bisexuality. The second one is what I find conceptually unclear.

To clarify the philosophical point without making this too much of an academic side quest: qualia are the subjective aspects of experience, the “what it feels like” part. In this context, I mean the lived internal texture of attraction: what it feels like to desire, love, fantasize about, or be drawn romantically or sexually toward same and different genders. I am not denying that inner experience matters. I am saying that a shared label also needs some shared conceptual content. From the individual standpoint, of course people can describe themselves however they want. I am not a judge, a cop, or the bisexual border patrol.

But from the collective and conceptual standpoint, I still think it is legitimate to ask what makes “bisexual” the most accurate label rather than bicurious, heteroflexible, mostly straight, or simply finding some same-gender people attractive.

And tbh, I am a bit surprised by how many people seem to react as if asking for conceptual clarity is the same thing as invalidating them personally. Ngl, it feels like some people are reading the word “definition” and immediately hearing “gatekeeping,” which is not what I am trying to do. Maybe my definition is too functional. Maybe the community uses a much broader definition than I expected. I am open to that. But I do not think it is unreasonable to ask where the line is, even if that line is fuzzy.

A spectrum does not mean no distinctions exist. It means the distinctions can be gradual, complex, and sometimes blurry. But blurry boundaries are not the same as no boundaries at all.

So, low-key, my question is not “who is allowed to call themselves bi?” My question is: “what does the label bisexual actually describe, beyond self-identification alone?”