“What’s also low-key kind of bothersome is the fact that just regular heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality aren’t good enough for such people. It’s classism and elitism in its ugliest versions.”

You’re not prepared to shift the ground to suggest that intelligence can be an arbitrary thing on which to base sexual selection…. but you are prepared to cede that gender (itself a complex and ever expanding pantheon of arbitrary and meaningless terms) can be?

I’m heterosexual — it doesn’t matter to me whether a woman I am dating happened to be a man at some point in the past — that’s entirely her business. If she identifies as a woman but she still happens to be biologically a man, then her gender expression is out of line with her biological sex that’s going to be a deal breaker I am unlikely to be able to maintain my attraction. There is very little I can do about that. The same would be the case if I were dating a woman who transitioned into a man.

If you are bisexual — then it is simply a matter of preference that suggests that you don’t want to have sex with trans people. There is nothing inherently wrong with this preference — and if you’re being guilted or bullied into having sex with someone you’re not attracted to, that’s a psychological problem you have to contend with.

As your article says, there are sexual orientations and sexual preferences. Sexual orientations fit into four broad categories. All, Same, Different or None. Sexual preferences are based on arbitrary social constructs — and that includes intelligence but also includes gender. Pansexuality is an additional preference that bisexual people have around gender expression — and one predominantly used to virtue signal to their core base group. The only difference between sapiosexuality and pansexuality is the mutable characteristic it is based on.