Whatever gets us out of this binary.

Indeed. I think this topic really suffers from binary thinking. You intuited my sentiment on the heto/homo binary in regards to these sorts of oddities. This has impact on the next point:

I just think that being attracted to "a chick with dick" deserves its own category. I don't particularly want to claim these guys.

Certainly, if we're dropping the T, then keeping around people who are especially interested in the T is a little ironic, isn't it? It's funny, on a different topic, a few days ago, someone made a counterexample--"So, we should add XYZ group to the initialism then?" No, that's the whole point of DropTheT. They, T, or men interested in transwomen, or both, can go have their own movement, and structure it however it suits them. The seemingly pervasive idea that if it's not perfectly heterosexual, that it must go into LGBTQ+ has been said even here; no, it can instead go into its own.

Do men who have an interest in transwomen have some sort of overlap with LGB? Are they tangential on some issues? Sure, I think so. But they're still more different than they are similar. So, there you go.

I could even make the argument that it's more beneficial to all parties to split things up into their respective themes, rather than trying to continue to bolt things onto LGBTQ+. Sure, it requires a little bit more legwork and startup costs, but you can actually focus on the issues important to you, rather than this amorphous blob of non-cis, non-het miscellany that is LGBTQ+.