This is confusing.
1) Title about sexuality
2) First paragraph talks about sexuality determined by genitalia?
3) Speaks about sexuality not being binary but then back to speaking about genitals and its relation to one's sex fe/male
4) Then back to the role of one's genitals to sexuality
This is all over the shop, be more straight forward if it was all just about sexuality as in attraction and expression. To which we could refer to how the origins of hetero and homosexuality arise along side the psychiatric community which designates genital to genital attraction because the ideology of the time was against homosexuality with big emphasis on making them kids. Because speaking about attraction doesn't require a reference to one's own sex, but it was important for the time period that was idolizing the male to female relationship in the west under evangelicalism.
Such a point is made clearer by some of the terms used by those who worked with transsexuals who simply avoided reference to a person's sex and denoted only the direction of one's attraction. Though the reduction of sexuality to attraction to a set of genitals is certainly ill conceived and more about setting normative standards than speak to what is captured by sexual attraction in a holistic sense, considering we don't even see other people's genitals when we decide we want to fuck.
But to go down the path of the relationship between sexuality and sex, Foucault seems to be the big hitter and here's a rather light read to perhaps consider his view in a 2nd hand way.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/sexuality_as_social_construct_foucault_is_misunderstood_by_conservatives.htmlI think the idea is to not say that sexuality isn't real but to consider how properly framed our sense of sexuality is. So that one isn't necessarily exploring what is true yet, but asking, have we posed the question of what is sexuality incorrectly? To which I think the origins of terms like homosexuality show how the power relations of the time imbued it with particular framings that aren't essential to one's conceptualization of human sexuality. How confusing such a framework is, becomes clear when trying to speak of sexuality for those in more ambiguous attractions and expressions. Leading to strange sentences like straight men who had their dicks sucked by gay men. And wondering what it means for sexuality when say there' gay for pay pornstars. To which if we emphasize the direction of attraction, it makes sense, that they may do sexual acts with other men as a man but still their sexual attraction is primarily women. But I think the act and the psychological/attitudinal disposition seem to be conflated so that questions of a man who is raped by another man is considered gay because the rape is in a sense a homosexual act.
See
Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A review of the literature for how hompphobic attitudes underpin the denigration/delegitimization of male victims of sexual assault. And maybe compliment it with
Male Sexual Victimization: Examining Men's Experiences of Rape and Sexual Assault.
Overall, don't know if your focus is like that of Focualts in interrogating sexuality or whether interested in interrogating the idea of sex. Which I have played with at times trying to think of categorization and wittgenstein's
familial resemblance or whether sex should be conceived of in discrete ways. Where even though intersex is a minority it could conceptually simply be a third category making sex a triad. Because it seems everyones trying to turn things into spectrums because they find the drawing of lines between categories as hurtful. And think they're overturning a gender paradigm by positing such a thing, but it's unclear it has such efficacy as any belief system maintained in society is somewhat stable and concrete based on the sort of real world relations that help to underpin such categorizations in a socially significant way. Without disrupting the real world gender segregation, they're idealists wasting their time. And one even wonders to what extent they are stuck in an abstract realm, true to the nature of academics, where their consciousness sis shaped by their labour, in this case rather abstract and not concrete.
And Bill Nye is a science popularizer, but whether he's a leading scientific mind of the age seems to be overly bold. He's a mechanical engineer that had a popular TV show about science and has often speak publicly about scientific things, but that doesn't put him at the frontier of a scientific field.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics