This argument is just... really? It's in line with the values of objectification to value the fertility of a mate, now?
Humans are lifeforms, and one of the most essential aspects of life is that its "purpose," if it can be said to have one - or at least its most innate drive - is to propagate itself and spread. Now, humans are such that we are able to value mating relationships beyond this purely biological function, but that doesn't mean that the production of offspring is not an important factor for most.
Sexual preference is simply not comparable to bigotry, at all. It's one thing to not be attracted to a black person because you consider them a lower form of life unfit to procreate with; that, of course, would be bigotry. Not being attracted to black people (or Asian people, or white people, or Hispanic people, etc.) just because you don't find their hue or their dominant features attractive, on the other hand, is not bigotry. Bigotry is pretty much always rooted in ignorance and is therefore a chosen state, on some level; sexual preferences stem from irrational biological imperatives and so are not subject to reason or evaluation in the way that you're suggesting. (Granted, this is oversimplified, since it does not take into account non-biological fetishes and the like, but for the purposes of this argument, it works.)
You may consider it "irrational" for somebody to be turned off by a chromosome, but you're not the sexual values police; if somebody else would be completely turned off to a partner because they discovered that they were transsexual, then they're turned off. You can ask society to treat you as a woman and to respect your rights as such, but ultimately, you cannot change what people feel in their guts regarding matters of sex and gender. There are some people that would simply be unable to overcome the knowledge that their partner was born a different gender, and ascribing such things to bigotry is both inaccurate and unfair to pretty much all involved.