Ok. ...take a stab at this topic,.. probably the murkiest, most uncertain topic...on saidit.

Don't let me drag you into it if you're unwilling... there is some futility in taking too much of a deep-dive on these things.

Now I have talked my way into the same issue you are stuck with, lol:

Yeah, welcome to my personal hell. =) I mean, in a different year, I probably wouldn't really care, it would just remain an intellectual curiosity, but the trans issue has just got me all worked up. I might need a break. I guess, what's the end goal here? 100% consensus among everybody? I won't be getting that. There's no authority we can go ask about this stuff. Experts, yes. Authorities, no. For me, it's sense-making, it's sometimes intellectual masturbation, and does have somewhat to do with the trans thing--which we all agree on why that's important. We all want harm reduction. I'm all over the place on this subsaidit, but I'm here for harm reduction and I reject trying to accomplish that with untruths. Just my moral principles.

The content between these two quotes above--you did a lot of work, it is consistent with my knowledge on the topic and I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate that. I'll circle back with some comments at the end.

"The most literal, basic sense of the term bisexual--same-sex attraction--as a fundamental or mandatory part of their sexual orientation."

Okay, let's have that be the litmus test. It's workable. It's as back-to-basics as we can get, and seems to be the way that lots of other people in this thread are treating it. A trans woman is fundamentally, inherently male, nobody is in disagreement on that. (So the outcome of that is that GAMP constitutes same-sex attraction and thus passes the exact same-sex attraction litmus test as any other LGB. We'll leave what that means aside for the moment, but the implications are very far from trivial. I would be quickly relying on reductio ad absurdum to treat that topic.) Framing it in the negative, that a person who is attracted to literal both sexes wouldn't have "same-sex attraction" is untenable.

---

So, now I can move on to consider your two frames.

Does GAMP attraction require that the stimulation/target be a natal male?

I think most gyneandromorphs are natal men, because there are a bunch of trans women. There's androgen insensitivity syndrome in XY. Extreme virulization ("It's a BOY!") in 46XX I believe happens, like severe cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but IIRC, there are no male gonads. (Great. Another can of worms. Do intersex count for bisexuality?)

Short answer, no, I don't think GAMP requires a specific criteria, just a specific form.

I hate to do this to you, but if you meander over to Reddit and have a looksie at the ahem topically relevant material, you'll probably be able to get the best handle on it. Look for consistent thematic elements such as erect penis, or not erect penis, or type of sexual activity depicted, how much of a "surprise" the penis is, for instance. Things like that. Nobody there is asking how the GAM came to be. Comments are like "Please higher powers 🙏🙏 once, just once." Porn can be instructive. Also, take note of subscriber count and compare to other more "normal" porn subreddits. That'll make your eyebrows go right up.

So I guess that answers the issue of option 2? The real or perceived sex is irrelevant. It's people who look like women who have penises.

In some sense, GAMPs are clocking GAMs as women. They comments don't say "nice cock, man." They read: "such a beautiful woman." Of course, we have to factor in wokeness, but wokeness seems to be suspended on porn subreddits sometimes. The presence of the penis isn't informing their brain--no, that's a dude, you don't like dudes. And they don't like dudes. They're stuck in some weird halfway point with their lizard brain trying to figure out if that's a viable sexual partner, it short-circuits and they get an erection. But in another sense, they very well recognize that that is a penis, and women don't have those, but look, clearly this here, that's a woman, see? breasts, long hair, wide hips...

And now I feel even more confused. I started this. There may be some very fundamental flaw in my overall reasoning that's caused coming to concrete conclusions untenable... and this is how you get people thinking postmodernism is a good thing. Not giving up yet. I may need to sit down and do some heavy philosophizing about this, but if I come up with a solution, I'm fairly sure it'll be crazy and incommunicable.

---

...not mentioned in the definition of "paraphilia/paraphilic": Ability... The sex of the participants involved (if any participants)

Right. Collected an anecdote yesterday of somebody who's into doors with multiple, apocalypse-level locks. (https://old.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/m4amzv/my_fetish_doors_with_heavy_locks/) Yeah, if we stop focusing so much on sexuality for a minute, and look at the relationship aspect of things, that in some sense could constitute "bisexuality." This is how the American Psychological Association defines it, and they're doing it for reasons of trying to help people. "Enduring Sexual OR romantic OR emotional bonding."

Nowhere does it say, in either of these two definitions, "You can't be paraphilic if you're normophilic" or vice versa. It seems quite clear that it is possible for people to have some varying degrees of "paraphilia" and "normophilia", in any number of combinations.

Exactly. This isn't given enough treatment. I was over on Reddit looking at a "Trans/Sissy Hypno" porn "recovery" subreddit the other day. They're framing it as an addiction, and the "porn made them do it." That's a pretty good defense mechanism if you don't want to admit to yourself that you're paraphilic, in this case, AGP/GAMP cluster. (Let alone being aware of the concept of atypical sexuality.) Some posters were adamant that they were able to kick their "habit" and that anyone who tries hard enough should be able to as well. Well if that person was only 10% paraphilic, of course they're going to be able to have that sort of outcome. Then somebody who's got 90% of their sexuality wrapped up in a paraphilia is going to feel like complete shit that they can't kick their addiction that might be more intrinsic than they want to believe. Harmful! (The GC crowd tends hold the "porn made them do it" mentality.) I see this problem pop up in all sorts of paraphilic sexual subcultures is a variety of ways. They don't recognize that while they may have some sexual interest in common, they're not all the same.

Being same-sex-attracted used to be considered paraphilic, back in the DSM II days, but is now considered normophilic.

Yeah, but if you look at the vote, it wasn't a clean sweep in the APA. They kept ego-dystonic for a version or two to tide the "no" vote over. (You have a similar thing with the distinction in version 5 with paraphilia and paraphilic disorder.) They may have removed homosexuality in part because they realized they couldn't "treat" it, and that reflected poorly on their organization. They did recognize that stigmatization as a disorder was a source of harm, both for SSA people and people who wanted to point to the "good book" and point out it was a disorder.

"I would say if one could start from scratch, ignore all the history of removing homosexuality from the DSM, normal sexuality is whatever is related to reproduction. Now you have everything else. I would distinguish between behaviors which are anomalous and benign vs. those that are malignant. So homosexuality would be not normal but benign. Whereas something like serious dangerous sadism would be a malignant variation." - Blanchard https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypp93m/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex

Other researchers share this opinion. Paraphrasing Cantor, he said that he would lump all non-procreative sexuality under the same umbrella, the exact same rights movement, including pedophilia. Just that some people get to practice their sexuality and others do not. Yeah, he really did say that. I should have bookmarked that, but I didn't dream it up. (I did mention absurdum earlier.) It is however, a solution, but one that'll never work in the real world. Maybe in the United Federation of Planets.

Normo vs para...

It's darn hard to come up with a taxonomy of what constitutes sex, and a logical argument as to why one type of sexual activity should be more important or "truer" than another, beyond procreation. It sounds easy right off the bat, but if you start out surveying people what acts constitute sex and which don't, you get wildly different answers. We can paint a general picture. Oral sex isn't procreative, but it is called oral sex.

Well, let's look at the definitions: "phenotypically normal" is the part that jumps out in regards to GAMP and relevance to the Blaire and Joey comments. And I think it's where the heart of all this disagreement about what is "bisexual" and what is not, lies.

Certainly. Also my comment about intersex, not that I'm trying to complicate things, which I do, just to perhaps re frame the issue to look at it another way.

RC, I'm glad you're here. I'm happy chatting with you about this stuff, but don't let me drive you crazy. Hang out with me and you'll learn about people getting off on door locking mechanisms. But this is like exactly my point. I don't know if other people here really truly understand how crazy human sexuality can be. It's nuts! If society understood how crazy sexuality can be, maybe they would twig that a man in a dress might just be getting off on that sort of thing, and not accept "woman trapped in a man's body."

Okay, now I KNOW I need to take a break. APPARENTLY there is a 10k character limit here. So I'm gonna go shave off some from quotes.