Once again, the situations are completely different. This is why I don't think you really understand what logic means.
The reasoning YOU gave is being applied equally to both situations, which makes it a logical application.
Maybe you don't want your reasoning to be applied to other situations you believe are "completely different", you should use a line of reasoning that doesn't work that way.
They're telling you who they are attracted to when it comes to men or women. That's all.
They can do that without using a word in a way that doesn't make logical sense. "I'm attracted to..." and fill in the rest will do it quite nicely.
If you want to insist that's not what the word means, most people would probably give you an "OK..." and move on.
Anyone who understands how logic works would say "okay" because they agree with me.
Unfortunately, many people actually WANT to believe the propaganda-based way of defining sexuality because it fits their agenda better than the logical one (which is why the propaganda campaign began in the first place - no one starts such campaigns if their agenda doesn't benefit from it).
The logical reality is that you CAN AND DO choose who your sexual (or romantic) partners are. No one disagrees with that.
By saying attraction defines your sexuality rather than who you are with, the propaganda attempts to justify sexual choices. It does this by arguing that since you don't choose attraction you don't really choose your sexual partners, which is nonsense.
You still choose your sexual partners, which logically defines your sexuality. To see why that makes sense, consider the case of a man who is more attracted to other men than to women, yet throughout his entire life he has romantic and sexual encounters ONLY with women and never with men.
If you believe the propaganda, the man is homosexual despite there being no actual evidence to support such a statement.
If you believe logic, the man is heterosexual based upon the evidence of who he has been with romantically and/or sexually.