To the original question - I was just making mention of the situation where a person's physical anatomy (whether they happen to own a penis or a vulva) is not a huge determining factor about whether they are of intimate interest to your character. I play several characters for whom it is 'a' factor, but of all of the various factors that are important enough to be considered, it is probably the least important. I play purely heterosexual or homosexual characters too, but most of the characters I play are bisexual to some degree, likely because that makes the most sense for my bisexual brain.
Tying which characters might or might not proposition you to the Daisy is, much like the Daisy itself, making an above-game statement that the only thing that ultimately matters in your intimate or sexual selection is appearance and genital set-up... which I find pretty annoying in base game, and do not want to see anything doubling down on it.
Saying that you can account for bisexual characters by having one or two available regardless of what 'actual' choice the player makes for their character... and that outside those pre-set one or two, you'll only be able to express interest in or share romance with the characters whose genitals match your daisy description is not in any way an acceptable answer here - it's doing bisexual characters an enormous disservice.
==
The Daisy itself is only creepy and off-putting, but considering that so many of your dialogue options there, as well as the literal narrator that forces feelings and emotions onto your character that you didn't put there, strongly implies that it's *intended* to carry at last some element of allure, temptation or endearment... It doesn't; it never does. I don't know this person - why are they touching me and acting like they're already my lover? Get the sod away from me. We can't actually Do that, though, because the game forces us to accept their advances and let them hugs us, hold us, stroke us and kiss us, without even offering a save out, even if we take the aggressive lines. Or worse - perhaps I'm Already emotionally invested in a love interest, and they are my confidant/lover/partner and I dream of them because we're apart right now, and I'm scared of what's happened, and I don't know when, or if, I'll see them again.... and this individual in my head is Clearly not them, and is just wearing their face and appearance? Even bigger sod off!
==
Some folks still have a basic misunderstanding of what having player-sexual characters means. It does NOT mean that everyone is bisexual, so, for those still sorting it out in your minds, get that idea out of your head. It means that each character has a personal intimate preference that is very much a thing and might be straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, aromantic or anything else.... but when you express interest in a character with intent to pursue them (before which, in a well designed game, you have no indication what their tastes might be), then it just so happens that in "This" iteration of the game universe that you are playing, that preference that they have and have always had, happens to be compatible with yours, or at least convincibly so.
Some like to say that having a character that can have different, flexible sexual preferences from one game to the next (often disregarding that they will be as fixed and adamant about those preferences as they would otherwise be within the world space of a single game), somehow undermines their character and destroys them... but that's honestly a farcical suggestion: I could have mentioned at the top of this post that I liked boys only, that I liked girls only, or that I only accepted intimate partners with at least six tentacles, and it would not have changed anything about what any of you thought to understand about my personality and character. Well, maybe that last one... but regardless... a properly built and displayed character is not undone by a flexibility in who they might choose to sleep with, unless who they choose to sleep with is some kind of integral lynch pin that defines their entire character... and if that's the case, they need to be scrapped and rewritten from the ground up anyway. It honestly comes off as pretty gross to suggest that who a person chooses to sleep with is so important and integral a part of who they are and their entire character that it being changable somehow undermines them as a person... No. No it doesn't.
Player-sexual characters exist as a means of giving players the opportunity to pursue and enjoy what they want to in the game, with non-infinite resources. The game designers cannot provide charters to represent every sexual preference multiplied by every sex, multiplied by every personality type, in the hopes of accommodating everyone - that isn't feasible. So, instead, they supply One individual matching the personality trope and style they're building, and allow their exact bedroom preference match whatever player actively signals that they want to pursue - at least in whatever way that character would otherwise allow.
==
All that said: Yes, there are a lot of examples that could be made of player-sexual characters that simply flip pronouns in dialogue and call it a day... and come off as treating you obviously like you are the sex and/or gender that the developers personally imagined them to be interested in when writing them.. and that's a fairly unsatisfying way of doing it... I know that the way I act towards other women that I'm intimate or romantic with is very different to the way I act towards men I'm romantic or intimate with; the relationship dynamics change, for dozens of smaller (sometimes larger) reasons... so it would be much nicer to see a rendition of this where, for example: we know that Gale is interested in pursuing women, because he has an existing past love interest. If we are a woman pursuing Gale, his romantic interactions should flow naturally in a certain way... but if we are a male pursuing him, there will be other considerations and conversations, different conversations that we use to build and define our relationship, and different insights... and we should get to see and explore those.
==
Sozz brings up a very good point that I haven't seen much addressed in the normal flow of these conversations: The design of this game allows and even encourages us to control the whole party, and play as each of them at various times, including in conversations. This stands a very big risk of creating consistency collisions and other immersion breaks when they continue acting along their pre-set ways when not under our control, but can suddenly decide to do something complete opposite of that because we took brain control of them for a conversation... On the whole I think controlling anyone but your main character in conversations is a flawed move, which stands to create more problems than it offers opportunities.
