Is this relying on an ambigious definition to define "sexuality"?

"Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors". So yes, it covers who you are sexually attracted to (sexual orientation) but also ways of expressing it. In any case, his answer makes no sense, because «female power» only means that: power of a female. And even if it includes «sexual power», it is only a fraction of all possible «powers». This is, you could replace «sexuality» with any other word like «hunger», and you would see the nonsense: «Yes I do conflate them (female power and hunger) because hunger is part of person and they might express them self through their hunger». It is a fallacy of composition. It occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole, or that the characteristics of a part can be attributed to the entire thing. In the example you provided, if someone were to conflate «female power» with sexuality and assume that sexuality encompasses all aspects of female power, it would be an example of the fallacy of composition.