It has been long accepted within queer circles that the form of gender is ridiculous, there is no "MAN" or "WOMAN" but an infinitely complex web of ever shifting genders and fucks that contains almost as many genders as there is people, many people are able to comprehend this simple fact. There is no need for a form of gender in order for anyone to adhere to any of them, nobody needs to define "Man" beyond a person who identifies as such and the same applies for any gender, from no gender to puppies, this is an undisputed fact (within the circles I have found myself in that is) - Now, since this is such an obvious fact, then, why is it needed to state those facts? Well, there is another domain - Sexuality - where many people have refused to accept the same self evident truth: There is no form of sexuality.

Many seem to think that there is an ideal "Lesbian", an ideal "Bisexual" (less and less so nowadays), an ideal "Gay man", and so on and so forth.
All three of those are forms of sexualities, by many defined by inherent characteristics - i.e. the Lesbian must be a "non man" attracted exclusively to "non men" - while the Gay man must be a "non woman" exclusively attracted to "non women" . While bisexuality in this framework is left for those who may experience attraction to Men, Women, and everything in-between.

The terms "non men" and "non women" already are compromises made by regressives trying to hold on to the antiquated notion of forms, previously those words were simply "women" and "men", some people believing in the form of sexuality correctly identified that those definitions using this terminology would be transphobic - however their new terminology is no less transphobic, as without a form of gender, categories such as "non men" and "non women" still are too rigid - what of people who are both men and women, can a Lesbian not be attracted to a boygirl? after all the boygirl is NOT necessarily a "non man" but is not fully separated from womanhood either . in this world where the form of sexuality exists, only a bisexual could be attracted to this person, where a lesbian or a gay man should either be having an awakening of sorts, or rejecting the attraction in order to adhere to the Form.
This of course, is ridiculous, and is a problem with a simple solution:

What is a lesbian? Someone who identifies as such.
What is a gay man? Someone who identifies as such.
What is a bisexual? Someone who identifies as such.

Once you realize that there is in fact no Form of sexuality, but an infinite web of identities akin to gender, the problem of the boygirl is no longer. Can a gay man be attracted to anyone? well of course. Will they be attracted to men most of the time? Probably, but they might not, or might, as it ultimately does not matter - sexuality is as much of a construct to be deconstructed as gender - and the faster we can collectively come to this conclusion, the closer we can get to truly being free.