Respectfully, this is quite insane.
Lesbianism, male homosexuality, and bisexuality are not identities. They are sexualities. They do not disappear when you are not actively fucking someone. Everything else in these paragraphs flows from this mistake.
I don't know how the idea of an "identity" took over and subsumed the idea of "who you want to have sex with" (I blame the troons) but that is... not what LGB is. It's who you want to have sex with. That is inherent to you. If a gay or bisexual man sees another man he is attracted to, his brain doesn't care if he "identifies" as gay or not. He will feel sexual attraction.
Sure, you can argue that bisexuals have privilege when they're in an opposite-sex relationship, I won't argue with that, but framing LGB essentially as a set of "identities" is just... no. It's about who you want to fuck.
I don't disagree that the behavioral tendencies (including sexual arousal) don't disappear when you are not actively fucking someone, but the framing of those tendencies as an identity that labels you is absolutely a cultural construct. To go back to the historical examples, the Athenian sexual identity was built around pederasty to the point of having it ritualized in the cult of Zeus. Most of the men who participated also had wives and children, but they would not have considered themselves "bisexual", nor would they have though of the receiving partner as on the same level of "gay" as the dominant partner. Gay, Bi, and Lesbian are labels we apply to behavioral tendencies that people display, and it is those behaviors that people sought to normalize and decriminalize in the gay rights movement.
The Bi thing in particular does matter, because there are people who claim a sexual attraction to the same sex these days, but display no actual behavioral tendency towards it. I'm thinking of Jameela Jamil in particular as an example here. She comes out as "queer" in an interview, talks about being attracted to women in a vague sense, and is feted as a "Queer WoC" despite being in a long term heterosexual relationship and having apparently had 0 issues ever with having her attraction policed. Unlike with the entirely made up trans identity, there is a real possibility she does experience attraction towards women, but so what? I, despite being gay, have also been attracted to and even slept with women, but my entire adult life post age 21 has been with men. I guess I could say that technically I'm bi, but behaviorally I'm not. Ultimately though, what I need from society is just the normalization of my behaviors (again, including the simple behavior of sexual attraction). If I chose to be a celibate monk, being bi, gay or straight would be irrelevant (thought I will admite there is a messiness here in the definition, since fear of reprisal can keep people from acting on their desires). But the underlying reality being reached for here is attraction and behavior. So, sexualities are real, but they emerge out of behavioral tendencies, and the way they are framed, understood and policed by cultures is what makes them identities. This is the same way that the biological reality of being a woman underlies the identity of "women", but an Inuk women's understanding of her role in society and her relationship to men is different then a French women. In both cases the biological reality is what is reached for, and even if the labels don't mean the exactly the same thing between cultures, they are not self-imposed (third gender categories are also an example of this). In contrast, if I was with a trans man and called myself "gay" , that identity is just as made up as being trans, because it's not actually reflective of any behavioral tendencies underneath. It's one of the ways that yes, troonism has essentially poisoned the concept of sexuality, by converting it into another post-modern identity, from a culturally framed material one.
The trans identity comes as a label first, self-applied and used to justify behavior. It's the opposite of "real" identities that emerge out of actual biological reality and behavior. This is the thing that drives me insane about these xenogender asexual transmascs etc. etc., no one can actually articulate what it means to be one of these things, because the label is all it is at the end of the day. Trans people aren't advocating for any particular thing, not even transition surgery is understood as a priority for the entire movement. The only consistent thing they want is for other people to call them by whatever label they've decided fits their soul, whether because they are a gross AGP fetishist or a teenage girl who wants to pretend to be boy. It operates purely in the post-modern abstract space that so much of modern culture exists in, totally divorced from any sort of connection to actual, physical reality. And, like I said, the label is used as a way of deflecting from behaviors that would otherwise be unacceptable. No one would accept the idea of a man violating women's spaces for sexual gratification, but with the magic of self-declared transness, that becomes a laudable goal.
I think ultimately what strikes me about the trans movement is that the argument is always
"when I do this, it's a good thing" versus
"this thing I do is not a bad thing". Even with something as drastic as SRS, the trans person is not arguing that everyone should have the right to remove their penis free of charge and without question by the state, they are arguing that their transness means that behavior anyone else would face pushback for should not apply in their case.
