Here's what this is driving at: just because it involves homosexuality doesn't mean that it's gay (embraced and practiced and attuned to the distinct sexuality of people who identify themselves as gay), nor is gay the be-all-end-all of homosexual sexuality. Like you assumed that I'm going for a purely Masc4Masc angle, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about when I say that there are certain tastes and such that can and do get disowned by gays. Transgender sexuality, which can and does get called gay by straight pedants who dry hump the dictionary, is another one that largely seeks to emulate straight sexuality - very few transgirls get gay boyfriends; they end up with openminded straight guys. Traps/femboys largely fall under a straight paradigm, too, in that they by and large hook up with women and curious straight guys, not gay men. That's not to say that 'they're just straight' (as we all know how famously insecure and inflexible straights are) but rather that their sexuality is often disowned by straights but still emulates, though simulacrum &c, some typical straight sexual archetypes and dynamics (rather than gay ones).
The Big Idea here is that straight and gay are not the two paradigms of sexuality; quite a number of things exist either on the outskirts of these frames or fall outside of their umbrellas. The relationship between straight and gay - that is to say the squabbling more often than not - doesn't define the sexuality of those who aren't strictly in either camp any more than their self-serving decrees (straights trying to straightsplain what's gay to police each other, gays defining what gay actually means for themselves) do. They also have their own right to square their sexual tastes for themselves
