Nope. If they are willing to have sex with both genders thst is bisexual. That's the definition. Nor even The All Powerful Larian and All Powerful Bioware can change the definition of bisexual. It's a cope they came up with a lame Ttempt to please everyone when in reality it diesnt please. Gay characters should be gay, hetero characters should be hetero, abd but characters are bi.
All romances in this game are bi sexual. This is factz. Your spin doesnt change this.
Bio knew they screwed up hence why DA3 (a game I dislike otherwise), npcs actually had legit preferences almost like they were 'real' people.
Bottom line, all romanceable npcs in the game are bi sexual. That isn't diversity.
I'm not going to argue with the main point that characters might be better characterized if given their own sexualities because I was arguing for the same thing on this forum several months ago (or maybe years... EA has been going on for a long time).
However, I think the design philosophy underlying playsexuality is different from the design philosophy underlying a bisexual character. If every character had their own sexuality and there was one character willing to have sex with either men or women, that character would be bisexual. If every character in the universe will respond to your advances, but you can only advance on a select number, then it is playersexuality. In other words, when everyone is bisexual, no one is. But it's quite pointless arguing this because we are just arguing the word that should be applied to the same phenomenon. Regardless of whether we choose to call it universal bisexuality, universal pansexuality, or playersexuality, we are talking about the same thing.
I do think being dogmatic about definitions in this matter, especially where worldbuilding is concerned, is quite reductive.
