>>3222442(Ran out of room)
>If you (as a male) are attracted to someone with female secondary sexual characteristics(slender, nonmuscular, short, cute, youthful, soft clear skin), you are straight. If you are attracted to someone with male secondary sexual characteristics (buff, wide-shouldered, tall, rugged, calloused skin) you are gay.Maybe, but you can still apply this to real life as well. It's more about the lump sum of various features than anything else if you want to get technical. Real traps are in fact a thing, especially among Asian men owing to the much lower average sexual dimorphism and higher neoteny within the race.
I've noticed that the goalposts suddenly move without always having to once the argument switches from 2D to 3D. The fundamental issue is the constant urge we all have to put feminine and masculine traits under two massive blankets. This is just human instincts at work. An individual thin, youthful and androgynous-looking man can look girlier than a tall, masculine-looking woman, but he is still more of a man than she'll ever be and she more of a woman than he'll ever be, and their features don't guarantee subjective gayness to another person, or lack thereof.
So is liking either one truly gay? No, it's not. Is it straight? No, not really. False dichotomy yet again. IRL traps, good ones at least, help to deconstruct this dualism more than anything else, giving birth to this pointless debate, and being dumb sexual animals we don't know how to satisfy ourselves with a good definition for traps.
I think I'll just note that if traps are indeed gay, then that's okay, because sexuality is itself just another invention and means by which humans create more boxes to help them understand fluid and ambiguous concepts. You never see bonobos that engage in bisexual behavior ever ask questions about any of it, do you?
