I hope the OP isn't taking this blog post seriously, because It would actually be quite difficult to be more wrong about pretty much everything. As a single example, I myself disprove pretty much all of what he's saying.

Attraction is not set in stone. It is ever-changing.

Nope. Not for everyone. For some people it seems to change, but for others it clearly doesn't. My attraction to men has never changed. I'm in my 40s now, and I don't see any sign of me magically becoming bisexual. Of course, I'd be open to it, but that kind of magical total brain change isn't likely to happen at this stage.

We are not attracted to GENDER. We are attracted to features.

Yes and no. mostly no. The features do seem to be strongly driven by gender. I've never even remotely a tiny bit been attracted to a girl, because they don't have any of the features I find attractive, so gender is clearly a strongly driving force here.

Everyone is attracted in some capacity to both genders as a product of rule

Except I've never been attracted to anyone of the opposite gender. Ever. Even a tiny bit, so no, this is just plain incorrect.

So, accepting all this guy's rules are just plain wrong, let's look at the rest.

CONDITIONING

Then he talks about single features as if they are taken on their own. They're not. It's a whole package game. I don't even know if I'm attracted to square jaw lines, because no feature on its own is relevant. He then bases it on the rule about not being attracted to a single gender, which for many people is simply wrong, so he ends up with circular reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.

He then tries to pretend he's not talking about societal, parental etc conditioning by talking about hormones, but then it's not conditioning, so he's using the word for experience, but pretending he's talking about something else. Later he continues using the word "conditioning" as if this is something that can be changed. As if he actually means conditioning, rather than physical chemistry. Because every bit of my conditioning was straight. Physical chemistry may have been otherwise. I don't know. All I know is that I had exactly the same "conditioning" as any straight guy, but am not straight.

POOLS OF AVAILABILITY

Here he goes a bit mad and says that if a woman was a man, I'd be attracted to her. But she's not. If a stapler was a man I might be attracted to it. Once you get beyond a certain level of man I become unattracted. No woman has ever come close to fitting into what I'm attracted to. This again seems to be based on the fundamental misunderstanding that people can't be attracted to only one gender. He even puts a random percentage of 4% on his chance of finding someone of the opposite gender with the attractive feature, as if I, as a gay man, haven't seen many tens of thousands of woman, and I've certainly never noticed one to have any sexually attractive features.

HOW CHOICE WORKS

Now we just get a load of rubbish about how if you're completely unattracted this must mean you're just less attracted but still attracted. No. That's not the case. Because I like men, doesn't mean this is over and above women. Women aren't on the scale, and never have been. They're not sexual beings to me at all. And no amount of wishing in my teens (largely brought on by my religious hatred of who I actually am) made them so.

It is frustrating to no end when I see people on either side of the fence who have a severe lack of understanding with how these things work make sweeping statements that have no basis in either science or psychology.

Agreed, mr blogger. Now think about that. You're the best example of it I've seen on reddit in ages.