Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I disagree about using AmbiguouslyGay for Yang. The \'ambiguous\' part of AmbiguouslyBi already covers \'dubious attraction to the opposite gender\'.
to:
I disagree about using AmbiguouslyGay for Yang. The \\\'ambiguous\\\' part of AmbiguouslyBi already covers cases where attraction to the opposite gender is ambiguous.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Also in general, I feel a good rule of thumb is to assume early details \'\'haven\'t\'\' been retconned unless they are contradicted later. And I just don\'t think \
to:
Also in general, I feel a good rule of thumb is to assume early details \\\'\\\'haven\\\'t\\\'\\\' been retconned unless they are contradicted later. And I just don\\\'t think \\\"only shows interest in their love interest\\\" contradicts \\\"can feel attraction to people besides them\\\".
Heck, if you go by the logic of \\\"she\\\'s only shown interest in Blake, therefore she\\\'s not interested in boys\\\", you could argue that it\\\'s a case of SingleTargetSexuality, because she hasn\\\'t shown interest in other girls besides Blake. (To be clear, I\\\'m not arguing this.)
Anyway, tl;dr: I think AmbiguouslyBi is a better fit for Yang than AmbiguouslyGay.
Heck, if you go by the logic of \\\"she\\\'s only shown interest in Blake, therefore she\\\'s not interested in boys\\\", you could argue that it\\\'s a case of SingleTargetSexuality, because she hasn\\\'t shown interest in other girls besides Blake. (To be clear, I\\\'m not arguing this.)
Anyway, tl;dr: I think AmbiguouslyBi is a better fit for Yang than AmbiguouslyGay.
