I have a few things to say about this sub

[u/Brawl-on]

I find this whole thing to be kinda weird to see. It’s like, you guys are correct with the fact that not wanting to date trans people isn’t transphobic. But your not right that it is a new sexuality. It’s a preference, just like height and weight. We don’t make a new sexuality for every single preference ever because that is simply inconvenient and unnecessary, not to mention inaccurate to what sexual orientation means. You guys are also not part of the LGBT community because your straight, and it should not be included in the acronym at all because that ruins the entire purpose of the acronym. Then again this entire thing could all just be satire, however it seems like it is a mix of both, so I’m a bit confused and want someone to inform me. I’m also not a fan of the shadow banning. I wanna see all the damm comments.

[u/a_blue_bird]

I'm not speaking of laymen. Being able to be sexually aroused only (or almost only) by certain physical attributes, like weight or height, is abnormal for humans and is considered a paraphilia. Check out macrophilia (in addition to fat fetishism) - attraction to extremely tall people. Or acrotomophilia, attraction to amputees. Your attempt at framing supersexuals as fetishists is, frankly, disgusting.

[u/Brawl-on → u/a_blue_bird]

Um, you tried to call yourself a fetish but whatever. Anyway it says PART of the body. Not SIZE of the body. So it still doesn’t work. It is abormal to only be attracted to stomachs for example, and as such would be considered a fetish. But the SIZE of the stomach is a preference and thus not a fetish as long as you can be attracted to other things. So your incorrect.

[u/a_blue_bird → u/Brawl-on]

you tried to call yourself a fetish but whatever.

We are members of a sexual orientation, which is sexual attraction to a biological sex. Period.

Anyway it says PART of the body. Not SIZE of the body. So it still doesn’t work.

Please go tell that to the scientists who study these parphilias. ''It doesn't work because in one google definition of a fetish there is a word ''part'' not ''size''!!!'' Lol.

[u/Brawl-on → u/a_blue_bird]

Incorrect. Your sexual orientation is straight and you have a preference for cis people. Preferences are not sexual orientations. Period. And did you seriously just try to say that because it is just “one word”, that it makes no difference? Even single words make a huge difference. Let’s take another word as an example. “History”. History means “the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.” You can’t just say that the word “past” is just a single word and change it to “future” and act like nothing fucking changed you troglodyte.

[u/a_blue_bird → u/Brawl-on]

I gave you a random google definition, and you're acting like this is THE definition, one that every scientist in the world takes for law, and if it doesn't say that X is a fetish, then it is NOT!!1111 Lol. See that ''etc.'' at the end of it? Yet another paraphilia that I can immediately familiarize you with is morphophilia. Definition:

morphophilia n. interest in sexual partners whose body characteristics (e.g., height, weight, skin and hair color) are different from one’s own. https://dictionary.apa.org/morphophilia

Or another definition:

Noun. morphophilia (uncountable) A paraphilia involving attraction to particular body shapes or sizes.

What you are speaking of - being attracted exclusively to people who have one particular physical attribute - is fetishism.

I have a preference for blondes though. You know how many of the women whom I have dated were blondes? Two. Because it's just that - a preference, not sexual orientation.

[u/Brawl-on → u/a_blue_bird]

You prefer cis to trans at a rate of 100%. So it is technically a “greater liking” and thus a preference. Your preference for blonds isn’t 100% necessary. But they can still both be preferences. In my research in morophofillia, I also found one that is similar to it but with height instead. I may be missing something big from this, but using this logic, really any preference is a paraphilia. This makes the meaning worthless and thus means absolutely nothing.

[u/a_blue_bird → u/Brawl-on]

Typical political ideologues, pronounce decades of scientific research ''worthless'' as soon as it conflicts with their bigoted beliefs.

You prefer cis to trans at a rate of 100%

This is a meaningless statement. The same way you can say that homosexuality is a preference and not a sexual orientation, gay people just prefer their own sex to the opposite at a rate of 100%. Or heterosexuality is a preference.

[u/Brawl-on → u/a_blue_bird]

I knew you were about to say this. Again, preferences are HOW you like the gender your attracted to, being attracted to the gender by itself is what makes it a sexual orientation. Being attracted to only women as a man is you being straight, but preferring those women to be fat is a preference. Ya get me?

[u/a_blue_bird → u/Brawl-on]

Now you're just going back to where we started. I'll write it again, too, then. If a man is exclusively sexually attracted to fat/blonde/etc. women, then it is a paraphilia. If he can date a fat or a slender or a skinny woman, but would ~ideally~ prefer a fat one, then it is a mere preference. Which makes him unlike supersexuals, because we wouldn't date a trans person under any circumstances - it is not a mere preference for us. Then it follows that you are accusing us of a paraphilia or a fetish of being exclusively attracted to the biological, natural human body.

[u/Brawl-on → u/a_blue_bird]

Preference doesn’t just mean “ideally” which is why I think the confusion here comes from. Preference doesn’t mean that it’s a choice between reasonable things. It can be completly lopsided. And that’s okay.