But using your own body as a resistance and increasingly challenging variations or more reps as progressive overload are what define bodyweight exercises.

The former, yes. Not the latter.

Also note that you didn't use the word exclusively, so that backs up my point.

When you start progressing in additional weight, the nature of the exercise changes from relative strength to being geared towards absolute strength

There is no functional difference between "relative strength" and "absolute strength."

You know damn well what I mean: weight plates, dumbbells, kettlebells, chains, whatever physical object that have mass to them.

Your body has physical mass.

Do you think your arm muscles give a fuck if the resistance is coming from your body mass vs a piece of iron?

No, of course not. Your arm muscles couldn't give less of a shit.

Bodyweight training is more suited for relative strength and weightlifting for absolute strength

This is nonsense. Gymnasts have tremendous absolute strength, and they train "bodyweight" exclusively.

Except that after a certain point bodyweight squats do not provide enough intensity for developing maximum strength exertion

I said progress, as in add weight. Can you read?

I gave the pistol squat as an example because if you are only using one leg to squat, it obviously takes less additional weight to max out.

Also, from a real world perspective, pistols are much more practical. How often do you press off in the real world with both legs at the same time? What's that? Almost never?

That depends entirely on one's goals. You want strength and mass? Both work for that. But if you want to bar dip 100 kilogram's worth of additional weight, you'd better do weighted bar dips. If you want to get good at ring dips, you'd better practice them instead.

Or you could do weighted ring dips.

What's that? Too hard for you? Yeah, that's what I thought.