So, what the person in
You must be registered to see the links
is ?
She's undoubtedly a woman since she was pregnant with her third child, yet when you look at her chromosomes, she's as much female than male, carrying both XX and XY chromosomes.
It's reassuring to imagine that everything is either black or white, because it remove all uncertainty and avoid us to search the answer by ourselves. But the fact is that nothing in life actually follow that basic dichotomy.
In addition of the example above,
You must be registered to see the links
touching the X or Y chromosome aren't this exceptional.
You must be registered to see the links
(XXY),
You must be registered to see the links
(XXX),
You must be registered to see the links
(X), and so on, including all those who are unnamed, are known and perfectly documented cases of sexual aneuploidies that break the minimalist lessons people get in school.
With just the three cases I named, you cover around 1 in 1,500 birth. It's both small in regard of humanity, ~0.07% of it, and big when took at life level. Between school then work, and including our neighborhood and leisure, in our life we will all know at least 1 or 2 peoples who are, to some extent, intersex, and therefore do not follow that minimalist dichotomy.
And what about hermaphrodism, since it's not a modification ? Whatever how efficient are their sexual organs, the fact is that those peoples have them both.
It's your opinion, yes, and you perfectly have the right to have it.
But where you're wrong is by believing that it's as valid as his. It's now decades that geneticists have started to explain, and to demonstrate, that your opinion do not correspond to the reality they observe. And when I say "decades", I'm nice. Turner syndrome was described for the first time in 1938, while Klinefelter syndrome was identified in the 1940's. Therefore we aren't far to them being a century old. And, obviously, the more we advance in our understanding of the human genome, the more surprises there's to expect.
You are turning the table here. The issue isn't in the fact to admit that one is bi-sexual or not (because, sorry, but having two kids and really liking sex with women, I can't be gay, just bi-sexual at most), but in the meaning those peoples put behind "gay".
Not much are fighting against the fact that they've been called "gay". In fact if you look more closely few even said that we are all partly bi-sexual. What they fight against is the latent homophobia carried by those peoples and, more globally, by threads like this one. This precisely because, by nature, humans are all partly bi-sexual and because, as you said yourself, there's nothing wrong in your sexual orientation, whatever it can be. Therefore the question shouldn't even be one. At least unless yourself (the author, not you personally), are insecure regarding your own sexuality.
