Only males have cocks n' balls, that's how mammals work. The definition of gay is "being attracted to people of one's own sex." Even if you live in clown world, sex and gender are not the same thing. Sucking on a "woman's" cock is literally gay.
So that's all it takes to define a mammal as "male"?
Which would mean someone assigned female at birth, who had SRS, and now has a "cock n' balls", is male. Right?
By that classification, if someone loses either or both their cock and balls (in an accident, through surgery, or due to disease) they are automatically no longer male. See the problem there?
Other than for specific medical purposes, or in a lab setting with biological research studies, it doesn't even make sense to reference someone's sex. That's part of the reason there is a distinction between sex assigned at birth and gender. Society is not a lab, nor are the people within that society lab animals.
When the original definitions for homosexual and heterosexual were written the main point was to make a differentiation between the two. Unfortunately, they didn't foresee the importance of gender, and failed to account for it, due in part to the culture of the time. Current and updated definitions for sexual orientations, with terms like bisexual, omnisexual, pansexual, and polysexual, all include gender in their definition, and many don't even mention sex.
While sex and gender may align, gender identity and expression are what we show one another, and have a definitive role in attraction and relationships. Walking around displaying one's primary sex organs isn't exactly a common social practice.
Lastly, with the definition you're using, sucking on a woman's cock would not literally be gay. Based on what you said, in order for it to be gay you'd have to be attracted to the person who had said cock, and you'd have to have one yourself. The attraction makes it gay, not the act itself.
