I’m trying to understand what you mean but tbh I’m struggling.

How is it that only being attracted to sex (as opposed to gender) is bigoted while being attracted to male but not female, or female but not male, isn’t? Saying you’re straight or gay is essentially saying you’re capable of being attracted to “everyone but gender (or sex) x”, which is defining an entire gender (or sex) as undateable, just like what I’m describing is also defining certain groups of individuals as undateable if they don’t meet one’s criteria for attraction, whether that be a particular gender, sex, either, or both.

Also, when you say “Lesbian women are attracted to women instead of not men”, this seems like a tautology doesn’t it? If someone is only capable of being attracted exclusively to women (not all women ofc), then the logical entailment is that they aren’t attracted to men. The only difference here seems to be the way it’s phrased which focuses on the individuals one is not attracted to, but that isn’t a practical difference in terms of the nature of the sexuality or whether that sexuality itself is somehow bigoted, only how it’s framed. If it’s simply the way it’s being described that you see a problem with, and the fact it focuses on the types of individuals someone is not capable of being attracted to rather than the types they are, then we can easily change how it’s described. In fact, I never described this hypothetical sexuality as “not being attracted to trans people”, that was something other people came up with. What I said all along was “being attracted to sex, regardless of gender” or alternatively “being attracted to sex and gender simultaneously”, with other possibilities being “being attracted to gender, regardless of sex” or “being attracted to either sex or gender”. These are all distinct sexualities, and I think most people probably fit into at least one of them even if they haven’t thought about it, unless they’re bisexual or asexual, though there could definitely be other categories (in terms of gender and/or sex based attraction) or people who are undecided ofc.

The race hypothetical seems like a false equivalence, and we could talk about it but I don’t think it’s related. I think that preferences for someone’s appearance, whether it be hair color, height, eye color, etc or even their race, can definitely be a fetish of some kind, and is more of a light preference or kink than it is an actual requirement. For example someone who likes people with blue eyes isn’t “blueeyesexual” in that they aren’t capable of being attracted to someone without blue eyes. However, what I’m talking about could feasibly limit the kinds of groups of people someone is fundamentally capable of being attracted to - just like being straight or gay rather than bi or pan does. It’s just an additional modifier on those sexual orientations, which specifies whether their attraction to women or men is gender based or sex based or either or both.

I’m not sure whether this would factor in or change depending on whether a person had a particular surgery - it may for some people and not for others. That could be an additional specification on how someone’s exact sexual attraction manifests in certain situations. For example it may be the case for some people who are only attracted to sex regardless of gender that after sufficient “sex change” surger/ies, a person was now attractive to them even if they weren’t born as the sex they’re typically attracted to. For others, they may still not be capable of being fully attracted to them if they weren’t born as that sex. This seems like a separate consideration that would differ on a case by case basis.

Where “super straight” comes in is unclear. I don’t really know what this term means as far as the sexuality it describes (though I suspect it’s one of the 4 aforementioned categories), so it was more of a heuristic label to attempt to approximate the kinds of sexualities that seem to be based more on sex than gender, or which factor in sex as part of the attraction in addition to gender. I think it probably means either attraction to sex regardless of gender, or more likely, attraction to both sex and gender simultaneously (which would effectively require the partner to be cis). But the other forms could all include attraction to transgender people - being attracted to sex regardless of gender (which is one possible variation of a sexuality that might still be called a kind of “super straight” but I’m not sure) can imply being capable of being attracted either to a cis person of a particular sex, or to a transgender person who was assigned that sex at birth but identifies as or presents as a different gender or the opposite gender. Being attracted to gender regardless of sex would imply being capable of attraction to either a cis person of a particular gender, or to a trans person who identifies as that gender. Being attracted to either gender or sex would imply being capable of attraction to either a cis person of a particular gender and sex, or a trans person who identifies as that gender, or a trans person who was assigned that sex at birth - leaving out only people who have neither the sex nor gender the person is attracted to.

Why would I be mad about that? That seems to describe a simple range between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That isn’t remotely what I’m talking about, it doesn’t even seem to account for the difference between gender and sex or for transgender vs cisgender people. I’m talking about sex vs gender based attraction, and as I said it can apply to heterosexual people or homosexual people. I don’t know why you’re so desperate to make me out to be a villain just for asking a question in good faith (which most of these comments are not demonstrating, and prefer to strawman and misrepresent me as being either bigoted against trans people or having repressed homosexuality or something lol. Even though I explained my view in depth and also clarified that I don’t even identify with this sexuality type but I think it would benefit everyone if it had a proper label rather than one which promotes bigotry and misunderstanding).

I know for certain people like that exist. Human sexuality is a broad spectrum, and attraction to sex, gender, either, or both simultaneously, all seem to be fairly common variations. But I’m not sure actually if the “super straight” label left open the possibility of being attracted to people of one’s own gender who were born as the opposite sex or not. It’s possible that given the original intentions, it denoted exclusive attraction to cisgender individuals of the opposite sex and gender combined - that is, not being attracted to anyone of one’s own sex or one’s own gender, and they must both be opposite to them. This would be “attraction to both sex and gender simultaneously” or aligned sex and gender aka cisgender people. However, the situation you described sounds like being attracted exclusively to sex regardless of gender. There would also be exclusive attraction to gender regardless of sex, or atrraction to either sex or gender (separately or together, e.g. a man who was a type of heterosexual, but could be attracted to women who were born male, women who were born female, or men who were born female, but not to men who were born male - attraction to anyone with an aspect of femininity, whether it comes from gender or sex - which some might call gynesexual in this context, but that again can cash out into different manifestations, e.g. if the femininity of someone’s gender was what mattered, or the femininity of their sex assigned at birth, or both, or either).

You’re right, the term “super straight” and its usage manages to imply both homophobia and transphobia at the same time. It’s unfortunate that a bunch of bigots had to jokingly hit on a potentially real sexuality and tarnish its image with their hateful nonsense.

I hate the term “super straight” and so do a lot of other people who identify as the sexuality it describes but dislike the term, the history, associations and connitations

Totally agree

Oh… i meant biological sex, as in the sex you’re assigned at birth, as opposed to gender identity. I think thats where the confusion lies. Sex as in the attribute, rather than the activity. I also think it’s silly that the English language hasn’t provided a terminological distinction between these phenomena.

Does hypersexuality or sex addiction cover the phenomenon of being attracted to sex and not gender? … i dont think so

Just looking to see if anyone had heard of a more genuine term for this sexuality type rather than treating it like a transphobic joke, really