It seems like it could in fact be a valid sexuality type to be attracted exclusively to sex rather than gender, but the only common term that seems to describe this sexuality is "super straight" (when referencing the heterosexual form of this, while "super gay" might be an unused but equivalent term for the homosexual form) which carries harmful connotations that aren't inherently entailed by having this sexuality type - which I agree is not a broader sexual orientation like heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/asexual etc, but is more like a "microlabel" such as demisexual, in that it's an additional descriptor that further specifies the exact nature of someone's individual sexual preferences/orientation. However, that also doesn't mean it needs to be considered as part of the LGBTQ+ community, as it's not a marginalized sexuality or identity - in fact I'm pretty sure it's one of the most common sexuality types there are, if not the most common. Especially due to how stigmatized or misunderstood this sexuality is, or that people feel it's invalid or tied to discrimination against LGBT people somewhat inseparably, there isn't much research on it, so it's possible that people who are attracted to gender are more common than people who are attracted to sex, but it could be the opposite.
I understand the history of this word is problematic as it was created by transphobes, and its perception is so heavily tied to those origins that it's considered a hateful ideology in itself. That's one reason the word needs a different replacement and a "fresh start". People are identifying as this sexuality without any bigoted ideas toward LGBT people, even being vocally pro-LGBT, but simply having no other word to describe their exact sexuality, and then using this word despite it having other connotations they don't agree with, because it's the closest word there is - and then being misunderstood and criticized for using it. It seems like replacing this word with a more well-intentioned one would actually serve to hinder those hateful ideologies from spreading (by stopping people from resorting to using it with no other alternative, as is happening a lot) and enable people to acknowledge the validity of all sexual preferences or orientations as distinct from any hateful rhetoric.
Additionally, the word itself carries problematic connotations linguistically - even if it wasn't tied to attempts to undermine LGBT rights movements - since it could be interpreted as implying that people who are attracted to people of the opposite gender regardless of sex are "less straight" than people who are only attracted to the opposite sex regardless of gender. This recalls the fairly backward arguments (or offensive jokes) that someone who is attracted to people who were born as the same sex as them but who identify/present as the opposite gender, is actually "secretly gay" or "in denial of being gay" due to that attraction and is not really straight - that, for example, a man who is capable of being attracted to either cis women as well as trans women is therefore somehow less straight or more gay (or bi) than one who is only attracted to cis women - and this may come across as undermining the validity of those people as truly being the gender they identify as, or in other words attempting to deny or downplay the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.
But it must be understood that being attracted to sex rather than gender does not mean denying the validity of gender identities in any way. Someone can fully support the rights of and acknowledge the legitimacy of trans people, that trans women are women and trans men are men in full, etc. The reality is just that sex is something distinct from gender and some people are attracted to one or the other or both, but not necessarily both. It's not something that can be entirely rationalized or explained, just like why someone is attracted to men rather than women or vice versa, or any other sexuality. It's something that people just naturally feel. Some so-called "super straight" people, non-bigoted and well-meaning ones in search of a way to explain and justify their sexual choices, genuinely just don't feel attraction to people who were born as the same sex as them, even if those people identify as/present as the opposite gender to them, and even while still considering them to be women/men in alignment with their gender etc. For the homosexual equivalent, aka "super gay", some people also are only attracted to their own sex, and would not be attracted to someone who was born as the opposite sex even if they identified/presented as the same gender as them. How can we criticize someone for having a particular sexual preference or orientation like that? I'm not saying they're oppressed or anything for having that nature (for being gay, yes, not for being "super gay" or "super straight"), but it seems silly and harmful to not be able to distinguish between people who are attracted to sex and people who are attracted to gender - it also doesn't need to be necessarily words based on how it relates to a larger orientation (like "super straight" and "super gay") but rather an additional label that you can place on any sexuality which denotes whether your attraction is gender-based or sex-based, or either, or both. To say that that is somehow discriminating against individuals just by not being attracted to them in some way you can't change - despite fully respecting them - seems no different from suggesting that someone is discriminating against women or men just by not being attracted to them since that's their sexuality. Are gay men necessarily misogynists? Of course not. So why would people who are attracted to cis people (of a particular sex) and not trans people (of the opposite sex-assigned-at-birth to the sex they're attracted to) necessarily be transphobes? It seems like there would be further variations to this as well depending on how people's exact sexuality cashes out.
The fact we can't seem to talk about this without assuming people have bad intentions, lumping them together with other people via association fallacies, and strawmanning people as being bigoted while misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting their experience/position is silly. It's obviously a nuanced subject, and human sexuality is complex. There could well be some unrecognized validity to a differentiation between sex-based vs gender-based attraction, and it seems like it would benefit the LGBT rights movements to be able to acknowledge these kinds of experiences, of people who are genuinely supportive of LGBT, rather than immediately demonizing it without trying to understand it. Maybe we can have a bit of good faith here?
(Btw, I don't identify with the super straight label nor with the sexuality type it describes even with the bigotry removed, but I don't find it to be justified to criticize people for having this particular experience of sexual attraction, and think it deserves a proper unproblematic term, or multiple words related to the larger concept of sex vs gender based attraction).
Okay, so I'm a queer woman who is gonna do her best to level wit you. The problem is that you're trying to come up with a sexuality based on exclusion, which inherently is going to be bigoted.
If you're a straight man, you're attracted to women. But if you were to say "only white women tho" then it's clearly coming from a racialized place, even if you insist that you're not racist, your limitations on who you are willing to consider a dateable woman says other wise. Conversely, if you were a white man who says "only asian women tho", that's again coming from a racialized and fetishized place. Even if it's subconscious and unrealized bias that makes sense in your head, the context of fetishized communities is still racism.
So on the same note, it's hypocritical to say "trans women are women" while categorically insisting that you would never date one. Does this include Trans women who have bottom surgery and pass as cis? If so, then visual attraction isn't the only factor. If not, then clearly "super straight" has some caveats making the term meaningless.
Anytime you're trying to define "everyone but X", you're inherently embracing a bigoted stance. Does this mean you're required to date any and all women who ask you out? No, of course not. But to defining an entire category undateable speaks to bias. Lesbian women are attracted to women instead of attracted to "not men", gay men are attracted to men instead of "not women". To say categorical trans folk do not apply there is by definition trans exclusionary. On a case by case basis, a trans person can be rejected without bias, but categorically doesn't just imply bias, but is such.
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.