I hate being called a "gynoandromorph." It has heavy implications to trans & fetishism, neither of which apply to me.

That's fair. I mildly dislike the term "homosexual," for instance, due to it's medical history. It also mixes greek and latin roots. I still use it though, because it's the best we got. In another thread today, somebody posted GLAAD's guidelines that says that "homosexual" is now a no-no word. I'm not keen on chasing the next woke term. Eventually just have to bite the bullet and settle.

I don't at all mind you calling yourself intersex, it's accurate, and you offered this up, but if I'm classifying sexual interests in a scientific way, gyneandromorph is an accurate, precise, meaningful way to describe object-choice. Intersex is all sorts of different things. To have any discourse, we need to be on the same page.

My "female-like" appearance didn't manifest because I fetishistically willed it into existence, I was born like that.

Of course. GAMPs were born like that, is also my argument.

If you mean trans say trans

No, I don't always mean trans. Trans is the most common GAM, but is not the only. Intersex is another.

I can guarantee that males who naturally have feminine secondary sex characteristics don't act like MTFs in any way.

You're incorrectly thinking that I was conflating transsexualism and intersex. Most of your objection seems to be based on this.

and to be blunt reading all thee "gender critical"/radfem posts about how us "GAMs" are basically just objects of fetish consumption and/or creepy fetishists ourselves is pretty sickening.

That depends if you consider GAMP to be inherently creepy fetishism. I don't. I indicated that I expected they were more or less born that way to it and came about it sans any moral failing. See the giant parallel? (I'll be swinging from the gallows in no time.) Any sexuality can become "creepy," even plain old heterosexuality. Just because a sexuality is uncommon does not inherently make it bad. It depends on the nature of the interest. Also, men tend to objectify everybody, sexually speaking. Strip clubs are a thing, for instance. If heterosexual men who are also GAMP can be accused of objectifying GAMs any more than normal women, it's probably due to shame and guilt. Society expects them to partner with regular women, not GAMs, and make babies, so sex with GAMs is something they do on the side, because it is society at large that sees the GAM interest as being purely fetishistic and not procreative--the "right way" to have sex. The problem isn't necessarily with the GAMPs or GAMs, just the sociosexual landscape as a whole especially wrt. negative attitudes about "creepy fetishism."

that women who are not attracted to "phenotypically normal women" and were only interested in butches

Gender (the way the word was used before trans got a hold of it) and sex are two different things. Woman is a sex. Butch is a gender. Some people do have a gender axis for their attractions (saying this sort of thing here is likely to get me hanged if misinterpreted.) How else can you describe lesbians who only desire butch women?

But saying that they're not homosexual or bisexual, or worse yet saying that everyone who isn't into masculine men is a "GAMP" or fetishist that can't be gay/bi, is not only pretty shitty but also heinously incorrect.

You're conflating gender and sex.

/u/reluctant_commenter and /u/strictly and I had a thread about whether or not GAMP constitutes bisexuality: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/6w7h/yes_even_buck_angel/q9cq

I made the point that there are different contexts, one is sex research, the other is well, common parlance. I'm still pretty staunch about the sexology angle, but I'm open-minded about the common usage. The overall problem is that the way we conceive of sexuality strictly in regards to homo/het/bi cannot account for the real sexual diversity that's out there.

We either change the model. Or. We accept that it's "good enough" and that it's not going to work perfectly for every single case.

People, yourself included, take offense when I point out that the model does not capture "X", because they assume I'm claiming that there are problems with the individuals.