I think for most people the split attraction model is more likely to lead to rationalizing away cognitive dissonance that shouldn't be rationalized. This was my personal experience. I think the concept of "demisexuality" is also relevant here.

In my personal experience when I heard of split attraction and demisexuality, I thought that maybe I was demisexual, heteroromantic and bisexual, though I never outwardly identified as such. I never internally identified as anything other than "not straight" and never outwardly identified as anything. I did not wanted to spend any time thinking about or discussing my sexual orientation or have anyone question it because I was aware that it was a house of cards I did not want to touch and blow up my life. I would be the last person trying to learn the ins and outs of sexual orientation. I wanted an out, not a real answer because I was not ready for that answer.

My logic of thinking I could be demisexual, heteroromantic, and bisexual was that I found it hard (read: impossible) to be physically attracted to men. I was closer to neutral about them than actively repulsed. I also never could or did imagine myself in a relationship with a woman, and in fact I didn't meet an out lesbian or bisexual woman until I was 25 and not until I was 26 did I meet one who was in a relationship with another woman at the time, and that wasn't really a relationship I had a line of sight into.

When I finally could see for my very own eyes a relationship between two women, it flipped a switch in me. Everything I never wanted to address all came flooding out and suddenly everything made sense. The easiest thing for me to recognize had been my sexual attraction to women. This was ubiquitous in my life and I had been aware of this since I was a teenager. I was only attracted to female celebrities, I spent a lot of time thinking about how attractive other women I knew in real life were, how they made me feel, and would distance myself from them every time I felt my feelings for them were getting too real and strong (aka the romantic interest in them I refused to recognize because it would topple my world). I rationalized never feeling that way toward men with the concept of "demisexuality," but I always assumed I could be attracted to men. In reality I only assumed I could be because that was the norm, everyone else expected me to be, and because of the societal benefits of such a relationship. I didn't really date, but ended up in one relationship with a man who still remains the most solid human being I've ever known. We had a very close bond and friendship, and were able to continue this after our divorce because my love for him has always been platonic. I was not repulsed by him so I figured this was demisexuality. I would often look at him and reflect on the fact that I wasn't actually physically attracted to him. That made me feel bad, but it also felt shallow to put too much emphasis on physical attraction, and it felt almost noble to ignore that. When I left and finally got to start kissing and having sex with women, the difference was so abundantly clear it was ridiculous.

I think people put too much stock in a way of thinking that encourages dissociation and disregards social influence. Some people want to be subversive. Some people just want to be normal. I was the latter and rationalizing away my nature. Even sadder, since coming out I feel like I inherited the burden of gender identity ideology, and had I known how fucked it would be to navigate this world as an out lesbian, that certainly would have only encouraged me to stay dissociated from my nature. I think the model also encourages unicorn hunting and treating women like sex objects and giving unicorn hunters the protections of calling themselves "LGBTQ" when they're not attracted to women, but rather to taboo, sexually enticing men, and the idea of a woman being attracted to them.