>>11365075
This touches on something I feel not enough people give its due, but this is (in part) the difference between "fundamental heterosexuality" and "incidental heterosexuality." That is, it's the difference between, "I'm a man, and I'm straight, therefore I like women," and "I like women, and I'm a man, therefore I'm straight."

There's a categorical issue that doesn't really matter in our genderbending-less world, but would suddenly start mattering very much so if it were possible. You would not believe, back in the day when I was thoroughly enthused with asking random people on Omegle "what would you do if you woke up as the opposite sex," how many supposedly straight people immediately and without-issue said "well I guess I'd go hop on a cock/fuck a girl lol" as if it were simply the natural conclusion to that scenario, because the primary assumption is "that they're straight" above all else. A lot of normalfags think this way, because they don't really see an issue with it. That said, I won't really oversell the phenomenon (it was probably about half-and-half).

You and I probably fit into the second camp. We like women, and because we're men, that makes us straight. However, the natural conclusion is that if we were women, we'd be carpet-munching turbo-dykes. In other words, the heterosexuality is entirely incidental, rather than fundamental. If only a single switch were flipped, yuri would be possible.

This is the schism that drives so much discourse in this very thread, and both it and other related schisms are what drive so much vitriol about it over on /u/. For my part, I think if yuri supremacy were to ever be achieved, you're going to have to choose what to do with the men anyway, and "permanently turning them into women" sure seems like a pretty decisive, strong, and yet gentle answer to the question as befits cute girls to go with.