I don't want to put words in Cantor's mouth, but I think the approach he is taking is thus:

There is a majority sexuality out there: and that is sex with normal, consenting adults. You can break that down a bit and recognize that there is the procreative variety, again, a majority, and the non-procreative variety.

Of course, some might be inclined to say that heterosexuality is the majority interest, but it is not, insofar as bisexuals and homosexuals operate identically to heterosexuals, save for the variation of same-sex desire and behavior. It depends on how you look at it. Are you concerning yourself with the nature of the thing, or the minutia of who it's being done with? Where's the salience? This is all an exercise in perspective. What matters?

Where is the semantic, logical, moral anchor to all this?

We need a diving line to distinguish between what is normal, and what is not, but, alas, where to hang this off of? What concrete thing could do, aside from what is popular? Men and women having at it is popular, but is that normal? Do we derive a concept of normal from the popularity of the thing? What if that popularity--normal--is not just an item of frequency, but of social acceptance? Gay rights, etc. Certainly you are aware of ongoing changes in that.

I think Cantor is hanging it off of benign, procreative sexuality. (I will quickly point out that the most malignant sexual behavior, in terms of outright frequency of crime--rape--is perpetrated overwhelmingly by heterosexuals.) So, his dividing line is that which is suitable for reproduction, and that which detracts from it... for a concept of "normal," but this isn't necessarily a claim of a moral good, either.

There are religions, sometimes niche ones, that encourage procreating as much as possible--and they do consider this a "Good." I'm inclined to agree in some fashion, really. Having a few humans around is a Good Thing, but this is a religious claim.

So, inasmuch, he does lump himself, a homosexual man, in with everything else that does not result in the propagation of the species--all the various fetishisms, autogynephilia, masochistm, etc. Things that detract from reproductive success. Things that are antithetical to reproduction--they are numerous and sundry in the realm of paraphilia. Castration? But, how did we come to an understanding of paraphilia, the other? Things that do not result in reproduction. Things that are not popular. Things that are weird, that don't fit with the mores of the time. Sound familiar?

This is his "in" group. It's an exceptionally scientific, technical understanding of the topic. He's not advocating abdicating moral responsibility. He's working out a typology, aided with an exceptional understanding of the topic and its history.

Insert moral panic here.

I have no intention of porking my partner in the bread aisle at the grocery store. I ask nothing of others that I would not do myself.

I might be a bit different, sexually (who am I kidding really?) but that does not mean I've abandoned the concept of propriety. Therein lies the problem. Does being different mean that propriety has to go out the window? (This just might be the teaching moment for "these people.") It does not mean that every difference must neatly fit into a sociopolitical concept of "sexual orientation," such that we have to--god forbid--celebrate it. There's a sociopolitical angle to this, and there is a Cantor angle, too. The latter is a technical one. Not some nice glossy thing that makes a good political banner--but it is how things are--reality.

Some hands of cards dealt in life are absolute shit, and while I got dealt a weird one, I didn't get dealt one of "those" ones. It's safe to assume you didn't get a normal one if you're here reading this. So, I'll consider myself lucky on that account, and truly, my heart goes out to the people who got the worse hand.

Sometimes you play a hand, some times you just realize that you have to fold. Sometimes, it's not just a bad hand, it's a harmful one to play. You can't ethically play it. Being a short heterosexual man is a shit hand. Being a man who likes little kids is an especially shit hand. But it's still your hand of cards. What about those people? Oh, we don't like them. They are bad. So people choose their height, then?

I'll finally suggest that the anti-TQ activism is going to fail unless this is recognized. We all want to assume that the male-to-female transsexualism motivated-by-autogynephia-takeover of LGBTQ+ is the doing of the transsexuals. But what if it is not? What if this is a majority phenomena? A perverted, virtual-signaling, luxury-belief-having class of people who fetishize identity politics... who really did it? Is the dog barking up the tree without the squirrel in it?

If you can--abandoning your assumptions--figure out why pedophilia is demonized while transsexualism is celebrated, then, I think you have a handle on it. If you don't get your hands on this, then perhaps, celebrating child molestation is in fact, next.