But the subtleties and variations in human perceptions and sexual responses aren't limited to that and make shagging a good looking TS qualitatvely different from shagging some geezer called Derrick.
I reckon it depends on whether this is an argument about what the limited range of words available to use on the subject mean by their strict definition or what people actually feel like.
Cogently put, but the binary and literalist thinkers won't get it, no matter what you say.
Like Raddy, I too must be 'James-gay'*, though if I woke up next to a chisel faced Pierce Brosnan type I'd probably throw up. The reason being I'd quite fancy a pretty ladyboy, and have almost arranged a meeting until I checked the private gallery and the jaw line was too thick set - even a hint of the masculine facial appearance was off-putting. But then, why was the cock not going to be a problem?
Well if you like; simple models of the world have their uses - if you have limited cognitive abilities for example, or are reducing the model down for a more simplistic analysis e.g. if a questionnaire asked :
Have you had a gay [ ], heterosexual [ ] bisexual experience (tick all that apply)
then I might have to tick gay if I'd been banged by a TS, but it hardly captures the nuance of the situation. Like I say, a simplified model. Some can only work with such models - like the geezer up thread who suggested the OP should be just as happy with a bloke in a frock.
Whilst I do not care if the binary thinkers want to call me gay, it really does not describe for the vast majority of people who understand the term, what my sexual predilections are, which are 99% girl pussy and girl-ass fixated. Did I say ass? Whoops, there goes my heteronormativity.
* 'James-gay' - a new term which means if you've been sexually active with a cock, you're gay, no ifs, no buts. Well maybe butts.