...exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman.
Yes. It could only be because we view them as subhuman or mentally ill. Not because, you know, sexuality. 
When the whole super straight thing came out I was thinking “finally! someone has nailed it,” I’m not even a tiny bit attracted to women’s bodies (or bodies with vaginas as we’re supposed to call them now)
” but then it was squashed down as being transphobic etc and never to be spoken of again.
I would not consider a sexual relationship with a person who has breasts, as I just don’t find them a turn on. I DO enjoy penises. I don’t fancy men who wear make up (with the possible exception of Captain Guyliner/Hook from Once Upon a time). I also don’t fancy anyone who thinks they’re the most important and interesting thing in the room, or doesn’t have at least a basic grasp of feminism, which rules out anyone who puts gender feels ahead of biological reality.
Hearing about a friend’s new 25 year old GF banging on about gender and being NB my eyes rolled so far into the back of my head I could see my lady-brain. I just couldn’t tolerate a relationship with someone who’d bought into all that bollocks - without actually having any actual bollocks - so I’m happy to exclude trans people of either sex from my dating pool.
I want an unashamedly rugged, masculine man, with all the anatomy that traditionally entails. My sexuality is not up for negotiation. If those 13% of people who would consider a trans person as a potential date are being honest and not just being kind, then that’s still a pretty good pool to choose from. As a fat 47 year old, I can guarantee that less than 13% of handsome rugged men would consider me as potential dating material so who’s really winning here?