Recently, there was a topic on here about Jordan B. Peterson and there seemed to be a consensus (even among flaired commenters) that he is a transphobe. Also in that thread, there were mention about how Sam Harris is terrible (and this is such a consensus around here that Harris is a staple of /r/badphilosophy and even has his own FAQ entry. The general idea seems to be that Harris is a racist.

Now, I think there's a part of it all that's over-emphasis due to the fact that these people are currently popular and alive (that would explain why the consensus on, say, Heidegger is much less emotionally-charged for example exhibit 1, exhibit 2, exhibit 3, even though that latter was an actual Nazi.

I think this over-emphasis is human and understandable. I just wanted to get that out of the way as it is not important to the point I'd like to discuss.

Now, aside from the above, I have come to understand (I think) that when people talk about "transphobia", "racism", "sexism" and such in this way, they are just using a much more expansive definition of "transphobia" and al. than I would.

As far as I understand it, a few definitions could fit the bill here:

1. "Transphobia is whatever belief a person has that results in an outcome where trans/cisgender identity has predictive value". So for example, if someone opposes a third gender pronoun, then assuming that a larger percentage of transgenders are queer (e.g. 5%) than the percentage of cisgenders which are (e.g.: 2%) would imply that whatever the basis for this opposition, it is transphobic. This would be the most expansive possible definition.

2. A slightly stricter definition would be "racism is whatever belief, regardless of its truth or falsehood, in differences between the races". So for example the belief that Muslims (or populations which are more likely to be Muslims) are more likely on average to be suicide terrorists, regardless of whether it is true or not, would be a racist/Islamophobic belief.

3. The strictest definition I can think of would be "sexism is the act of making a distinction between people based directly on their sex". So for example, the idea of advocating for men to be breadwinners and women to care for the home would be a sexist idea.

Each of those definition is defensible, I think.

Now, the problem, it seems to me, is that being heterosexual or homosexual actually fits all of those definitions. If I am homosexual, I will only consider as potential mates, people of the same sex and/or gender (and similarly for heterosexuality). I am literally discriminating on the basis of people's sex (or gender).

If being sexist is necessarily bad, does that mean that an "anti-sexist philosophical framework" would have to oppose hetero and homosexuality? If not, are there definitions that would classify the "bad stuff" as sexist but exclude the "good stuff" without adding epicycles?