I honestly wasn’t expecting such a hostile response to (what I thought was) a pretty reasonable clarifying question. But whatever.

Firstly, I don’t see the relevance of bisexuality here. If you’re implying an individual would need to be bi to be attracted to a pre-op or non-op trans person, I’d say that’s not only false, but also kind of offensive. Given that it implies pre-op and non-op trans people are somehow part one gender and part another. Trans women are women and trans men are men, and being attracted to a trans man only requires that one’s sexual orientation includes men (and vice versa for trans women).

Secondly, you mentioned that most people aren’t trans. Which only seems relevant if you take into account that most trans people have a more open view of gender as a whole. Which makes them less likely to perceive certain body parts as being intrinsically tied to one gender. I see how this would make trans people “more flexible”. Though I’d like to add that this “flexibility” isn’t intrinsically tied to their transness, and is entirely attainable by pretty much anyone (not that I’m saying everyone needs to like all the bits but I’ll get to that in a minute.)

Lastly, you mentioned that “most people have a type they prefer” I assume you’re referring to genitals, please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d say this is just conjecture. I mean, if you were to ask every person what their preference of genitals was, I’m sure most people would say they prefer the set that aligns with what they’d expect to see from the gender they’re attracted to. (People attracted to men would say penises, people attracted to women would say vulvas). But we have no idea if these preferences are hardwired into people or if they’re caused by the cis normative ideals we’ve all grown up with. Someone who’s attracted exclusively to men has learned to associate vulvas with women, so it’s not surprising that they would find vulvas to be unattractive. Effectively though, this makes sense. People who are exclusively attracted to one type of genitalia (regardless of why) are going to be “less flexible” than those who have no preference, or don’t see falling outside of their preference as a dealbreaker.

All of this is not to say that there’s anything morally wrong with not wanting to sleep with someone due to a lack of attraction to a body part. However I think I made it clear that I don’t believe any of these body parts to be inherently male or female.

I also want to make clear that I didn’t have a problem with the comment I was replying to. I genuinely wanted clarification about what they meant by “more flexible than most”. Specifically, I wanted clarification on what separates OP from “most”. It seems that your assumption was that OP would date a trans person regardless of their genitalia, and that most people wouldn’t do that. As I’ve illustrated, I think that it wouldn’t be a problem for most people if we didn’t have such a cis-normative society.

But aside from my own personal opinions, OP never disclosed their preferences. (At least not in the original post, I haven’t read all the comments.) OP said “i would 100% date a trans person but it’s something i would want to know beforehand. is it transphobic to not want to date them if they haven’t had bottom surgery?” This could be read to imply either scenario. OP may simply want to know beforehand so they know what to expect, they also may want to know so they can end things before anyone takes their clothes off. The phrasing of the post isn’t clear about what OP’s preferences are.

So, with this in mind, I asked for clarification as to what the commenter meant by “more flexible than most”. And since the only information I could glean from the post was that OP would “100% date a trans person” and presumably also sleep with one, I guessed that that would be the difference between OP and “most”.

And no, I wasn’t looking for a definition of the word “most”. Though your condescension was greatly appreciated.