I asked you that and you said “many reasons” but failed to offer even one.

You're being disingenuous. I listed three in my response:

People have plenty of reasons for sexuality - trauma, being exposed to something at the time of sexuality discovery and certainly socialization.

These things are known to cement in paraphilia.

Do I think those people choose a sexuality like they choose cereal? Absolutely not, but to pretend we understand how experience, nurture, effects sexuality and whether or not humans have one at all (which is my point - you keep appealing to emotionally appealing examples to people who face social ostracization and punishment for homosexuality as if that is proof of innate sexuality). I don't believe sexuality is innate. Homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. I think we were a socially sexual species that uses sex for both social bonding, recreation and reproduction. I believe we've all been so thoroughly programmed about sexuality to make a claim about it without evidence (like it's innate - again, any evidence for that, and I'd love to counter that, but an argument of whataboutism appealing to my emotional state is no better than TRA do with gender) is not logical.

You claim that it’s media, but won’t address the fact that sexuality existed before media did.

What sexuality do we know of that precedes media? Dworkin certainly shows how Marquis de Sade affected a world's sexuality without broadcast media.

Question for you - how do YOU explain the rise in women reporting as bisexual to have changed from 13% from 2% while men have stayed at 2%?

And that many people have a sexuality that goes against what media pushes on people.

Which is often shaped by a variety of factors of environment, like trauma, but not only trauma, which can cement us into things against the social norms, even things that are harmful or can cause us to be ostracised or murdered.

you are the one who came here with a view that most people don’t share

Which doesn't mean you're right. Again, it was our side, the LGBT that claimed all sexuality was innate (no evidence), doubling down on Catholicism who claimed a specific sexuality was innate (no evidence), because we cannot express the proved (evidence) fact that sexuality can change and be affected by trauma and experience. Just because we all agreed to something without evidence and feel the need to continue defending that false statement because the modern gender movement is using it to violate lesbian's boundaries, does not mean it's science or fact. There is more evidence to the contrary than to support innate sexuality.

Nobody else blinked when the other commenter said sex was innate.

Sexuality, you mean? Correct, because, again, who is going to argue the last inclusive message that was universally accepted without proof (and claims of bigotry or right-wing alignment if you challenged it). You're being pretty aggressive with me about it, which is why other people won't even consider challenging their thought on it or looking for evidence. Not that I agree with him on much, but Salty has been saying this for years, and no one has ever actually debated him with any studies or facts countering it because there are none.

I am not introducing a new claim that needs to be defended. I'm pointing out a lack of evidence in your claim.