And with respect it's naive to think that distinction wasn't thrown to the wolves a long, long time ago.
When that distinction is lost or discarded, someone is doing social interaction wrong, and the situation is not sustainable. That does happen sometimes.
Monarchies and dictatorships can persist for generations when the people grumble but are not driven to actual revolt. Instead of putting up with subdued grumbling, a monarch or dictator can choose to use the apparatus of state to compel adoring crowds to show up and cheer. Rarely, that scenario leads to actual approval (for instance when prosperity and/or military victory are achieved). More usually, it ultimately resolves itself in bloodshed.
On a much smaller scale, the Atheism Plus fiasco showed the results of rejecting middle-ground tolerance. Any reaction to them that fell short of delighted approval was read as hatred and returned with hatred. Atheism Plus is a cautionary tale of how that distinction between tolerance and delighted approval can be lost (on purpose, when it's someone's agenda to impress others with how hated those others are), and the eventual result (self-immolation by circular firing squad).
In the real world, what your neighbors do or are that you don't fully approve of but don't express any objection to is what makes community possible. This is sometimes referred to as freedom.
Eliminating that distinction, demanding delighted approval when tolerance should be a sufficient aim, is a political mistake that the American left has been making and continues to make more and more, and which the Right (following the old dictum of never interrupting your enemy when he's making a mistake) has been thrilled to play along with. For instance, evidence shows that most Americans are willing to tolerate abortion, meaning they want it to be legal. But if it came down to a referendum between those who are not willing to tolerate abortion at all, and those who delightedly approve of it, guess who would win. When enough moderates get shouted down from both sides, that's the net effect.
(So why does the American left think shouting down those whose tolerance isn't sufficiently delightfully-approving for their taste is a great idea? Beats me; I think it's asinine. I mourn the social progress being pissed away because of it, but I can't do anything about it.)
I actually do seriously think that within a moderate time frame not being sexually attracted to someone who identifies as your preferred gender will be... problematic. It will be seen as, roughly, equivalent to not being attracted to a certain race. Maybe not "transphobic" on some literal sense but in much the same way I'd wager most people now would see a statement like "I'm not attracted to black women" as, if not racist, at least... racially problematic.
We can't act like there isn't an expectation that acceptance will follow tolerance.
That expectation (where "acceptance," I assume, is meant to be beyond tolerance, closer to what I call "delighted approval") might exist, but it's suicidally unsustainable. Plant your flag on tolerance and you can defend it indefinitely. Insist on delighted approval, and you're pushing the pendulum to where it will swing back on you sooner or later.
Do you think "I'm not attracted to polyamorous groupings" will have the same reaction for the same reasons?
I identify as demi. I'm not attracted to anyone who is not my (white, female, of a certain age) wife. That includes black women, gay men and women, trans men and women, and unicorn-identifying otherkin. Does that make me a problematic everything-ist?
