Imperfect classifications are nerd-bait, and that goes for political nerds (ideological-nerds, etc.) too. Every time something comes up about dogs & wolves, po

Imperfect classifications are nerd-bait, and that goes for political nerds (ideological-nerds, etc.) too. Every time something comes up about dogs & wolves, polar bears and browns or some other case where classification of a taxa is grey, HN gets baited. Species are supposed to be speciated, and not supposed to breed outside of the species. When they ignore these rules, the whole concept of species gets muddled, and we get fascinated and sometimes get annoyed, resolved to create a more precise classification system. Genes are also supposed to flow from ancestors to descendants, and we have the same reaction when genes just float around and end up somewhere. Anyway, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual and such are fuzzy classifications. We've gone and built frameworks around them, moral frameworks and others. "Born this way" is an moral-political framework, for example. It was framed this way because it generally agrees with observed reality and because it slots into minority protection, a rights framework that is well established. An alternative framework could have been, "Homosexuality is OK because it's harmless," which works fine as a personal/moral framework, doesn't require classification of people but does not work as well as a political rights framework. What will happen to our Lady Gaga songs if our classification goes away goes away? Oh no. Anyway, the reason all these categories are imperfect is because they're descriptions of human behaviour, and human behaviour is complicated. So yes, most people have certain patterns of sexual behaviour, desire, identity or whatnot. Some people are chaotic. These patterns are affected by things, like the complicated and shifting societal "rules" about what is good, bad, shameful or otherwise. Now that a good portion of the political work has been done (socially sanctioning homosexuality), I think we can start to complicate the story. One bit of complexity is the difference between "sexual" behaviour types: dating, sex, relationships, cuddling in front of the telly, marriage, family.... Our current framework at it's least nuanced assumes sex is the linchpin to all these. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are gay for some of these behaviours and straight for others. I think they always have been. There are streams and rivers of pattern, but every drop of water does what it does. The rules (when they are adhered to at all) govern streams, not water.