Agree on the mentally unwell part. We often find physically fit people to be more desirable, why not mental fitness? Maybe that's saying the quiet parts out loud, but it is true.

You're picking apart the male and female, with hair and mastectomies, etc. in the same way that trans people try and pick apart the sexes. This strikes me as the same nature of argument.

If I were capable of taking a man and making him indiscernibly anatomically, psychologically female, then our hitherto man could be an erotic target for other, heterosexual men. Perhaps if the secret were revealed, then the attraction would vanish--and I think this is the salient part of the conversation. Not one well had with LGB folk--because of the obvious emphasis on sex--but is it not just the discerned sex, but other conceptualizations we have of people that make them appealing or not, to us? Have any of us beyond our teenage years broken up a relationship with the correct sex for us, why?

I think we have to concede this point to the transgender crowd. Were the medical technology sufficient...

However, that is not where we are. We can't have this argument on the basis of what-ifs? So, I agree with you practically, but not philosophically. It seems to me you're making philosophical points, and you're stuck here because we can't all agree on the painfully obvious fact that it is not just the sex of a person that strikes our desire, or or dislike.

Please, do not get me wrong. I think gender ideology is complete horseshit. I'm not interested in people because of some gendered soul they have. It's not a religious interaction. Yet, can you see how they may rightfully be accusing the trans detractors of genital fetishism? Because we can't say out loud that we like fit people, or tall people, or women with long, curly brown hair who know how to turn a wrench, drive trucks, and ain't afraid of having a bit of dirt and grease on their face? Okay, oddly specific example... but damn...

EDIT:

I was thinking of the criticism I could get for this post, and you're right. That's a "bisexual thing to say." So, let's deal with that.

Perhaps this is where we missed the mark. Maybe bisexuality isn't an interest in both sexes, where heterosexuality and homosexuality is an interest in just one. Perhaps they're entirely different experiences and we can't put our fingers on it. Maybe the monosexuality of heterosexuals is different from the monosexuality of homosexuals, which is different from the plurisexuality of bisexuals. Each being its own thing, the sexes not regarded. We think we're just dealing with our sex, their sex, but we've actually got two, maybe three very different phenomena and we can't see it. It's these endless fights between those that like both sexes and those that like their same sex, in particular, that's leading me to this intuition.

I maintain that while bisexuals and homosexuals have same-sex attraction in common, they are both very different. Bisexuals have opposite-sex interests. Homosexuals do not, and this is what makes them special. I don't understand homosexuals as people with same-sex attraction. I understand homosexuals as people lacking opposite-sex attraction.