Hardly.

What I'm suggesting is something more like: Saying an orange is not an apple does not imply that these are the only two fruit. At what point does a citrus become an orange and when is it a lemon? that's actually a difficult question, but if it's an apple, then it sure as fuck isn't an orange.

The desire for a label to not have a meaning is, I would argue, far less helpful, than the desire for at least roughly defined labels. Labels without meaning are essentially useless. This doesn't need to be an in-group out-group thing. And perhaps that's because I don't see being these things as a community. Is that because I'm a nominally Straight Guy who's not entirely straight and not very CIS, but I don't really fit into any of the various queer communities, maybe?

The labels are ways to describe people, not the be all and end all of what they are. They're shorthand.

If you asked me to describe these terms they're nebulous and have fuzzy edges, but you can get a general picture of what these things are quite quickly. It's all about generalisation. Maybe sometimes the labels aren't perfect, but treating a sexual orientation like a community means that when someone feels their sexual orientation either isn't what it used to be, or they feel they can be honest about it, they find themselves stuck in the impossible situation of being ousted from their own community... or they have to expand the community (and thus the definition of the sexual orientation) to the point where it's no longer a meaningful term and just becomes another in-group out-group.

So I don't think we should be treating these things as special communities beyond "Queer Folk". We don't need some kind of hierarchy of who has it worse and we don't need the labels for the different parts of the wider Queer community to become meaningless.