I said similar to this on the AIBU thread and got told to fuck off! Although it seemed there were some poster on there who weren't exactly acting in good faith.
There was an AIBU thread a while ago about a guy who was uncomfortable because his company had some sort of day where they all wre supposed to talk about their sexual identity, and one gay employee was asked to do a write up in the company newsletter where he talked about how happy he was to bring his whole self to work.
I thought it was notable how many people in the discussion didn't seem to understand the difference between someone casually mentioning a partner, or bringing them to a work event that includes partners, and this idea that everyone needs to know everyone's sexuality so they can bring their whole self to work.
A few posters said something which I think is really important to understanding how people are thinking about all this: to the effect that sexuality was a fundamental element of identity so to be validated as a human being in the most basic way meant that we all have to be open with each other about our sexuality.
If that is the mindset, then a person who doesn't have a strong attachment to a category of gay or straight might feel some necessity to have some other identity category to replace them. It's all quite different than the older view in the earlier days of many gay rights movements that proposed that sexuality was just one aspect of a person's life, rather than an identity. I suspect lobby groups adopted the identity approach because it's better for their bottom line. But it lends itself to multiplying into a plethora of different sexual identities.
I don't take that view and I think that as a leader in a children's organisation, sometimes it may even be appropriate to be more private than you would be in a workplace, depending on the kids you are working with. You aren't there to bring your whole self, you are there to help the kids.