"You can claim the word 'celibacy' MUST imply choice, but then you ignore the relevant question: We can respect autonomy and still recognize the existence of involuntary lack."

Not at all. The issue with this is that it isn't just a question of whether or not choice is present. I'm saying celibacy implies a *particular* kind of choice - that is, a choice against something, whether that's marriage or sexual behavior. It's willful *restraint*, as I said. In just about every context historic and modern, it's understood in this way, that celibacy is voluntary by its nature.

On this understanding, your question is actually not relevant, since understanding the meaning behind the concept of celibacy precludes it being an involuntary lack of sexual activity. I'm not arguing that there isn't such a thing as involuntary lack where autonomy is involved. What I'm arguing is that celibacy is the wrong word for that.

I did read your other comment and I disagree with it for the reasons already stated before and above. Your analogy doesn't address the issue of either choice or restraint specifically that's implied in celibacy. So whether it's logically irrefutable or not at a very general, abstract level doesn't matter when it's not particularly relevant.