I'm bewildered by your choice of Twitter screenshot for this article. Just now I looked up the three Twitter accounts in the screenshot: one account is permanently deleted, another is temporarily suspended, and the remaining one is less than a year old, has only about a hundred followers, provides a link to a political website (apparently someone else's creation), and has an imperfect rating from BotSentinel which is an app that determines which Twitter accounts are likely to be intentionally "disruptive."

Which is to say, those three Twitter accounts might have been bots, trolls, sock puppets, false flags, etc. or young people with small platforms "just saying stuff."

Even if those accounts had been influential, and even if they may otherwise be considered representative of any population or ideology, the raunchiness of their one-liner sexual banter does not make them politically "left-wing" nor meaningfully aiming at any real "social justice," nor would their hypothetical adoption of "a center position" obviously resolve whatever might be specifically problematic or objectionable in their comments.

You can say, Hey, everyone can define the meaning and scope of their own sexual feelings and ought to be left alone to choose their own sexual partners, and you can add that Twitter bots are annoying and damaging to real discussions, but those aren't really political positions, and as such they aren't left-wing, right-wing, nor centrist.

If there are debates to be had over what "sexual orientation" should feel like, how it should be understood, and how it should manifest in the world, that seems like an academic question for scholars of gender/sexuality. I don't think most of us can begin to address that question by jumping ship from the U.S. Democratic Party (for those who are U.S.Americans) or from "the left."