It's actually quite difficult to make a reasonable response to your post. But, because I feel like this needs a counter argument , don't want this potentially hilarious thread to die, and most importantly, am bored, let me attempt to break down my response paragraph by paragraph.
First: I do appreciate you putting your TL;DR at the top. Nice job there. Let me do my own:
TL;DR: The TC's argument is a series of unsupported opinions and wild generalizations.His rhetoric is quite lacking, and he failed to even maintain a veneer of civility by the end.
Second: I'm not sure you know what the term "objective fact" actual means, considering you fail to provide any. There's not really even any room for objective facts in your argument, considering it's all subjective opinions on gender aesthetics, which of course vary across cultures and time periods. Perhaps you could provide some statistics, but that seems like it would take some actual thought, so I can understand why you didn't bother.
Third: Unattractive in every sense of the word? You do realize that attractive is not defined as solely sexual, correct? In paragraph four, you state that you'd find all of those attributes you mentioned attractive on a male character, and thus you've already contradicted yourself.
Moving on, are we playing the same game? Ridiculously over the top animations are the norm on every champion, and her design is no more unnatural than anyone else's look. Even the more human ones have at least one or two unrealistic attributes, in either proportions or clothing.
Four: "That's right, I said it." Said what? The most you've said at this point is that you don't like Vi's look, described what specific attributes you don't like about her, and stated that these views are your opinion (except for those nonexistent "objective facts"). You may have implied that this was because she was female, but you've not outright said it yet.
"Theses same features would be admirable on a male character." Now you've said it!
Five: Now you've said it some more. I'm sure you realize that this is a complete double standard that you've so far done nothing to justify. And I can't think of any superheroes that are female, incredibly strong, and have been around for long enough to become common knowledge. Because that Woman would have to be pretty Wonderful to pull that off.
Six: You are correct, aesthetic ideals do exist. Even I, with my staunch opposition of every opinion in your post, must concede this point. Of course, that doesn't mean I need to buy into them, use them to judge people, or whine if they are violated. After all, who am I to determine someone's opinion on their own self and gender? And what gave you that right? You're certainly not representing the view of society, because I almost certainly disagree on what those ideals are and you've done nothing to prove that you have a majority on your side.
Additionally, deliberately crossing those boundaries is being creative (although I'm not sure I'd use a word as restrictive as boundaries). If Riot completely refused to make anything but male champions that only perfectly fulfill a masculine ideal, and female champions that only fulfill feminine ideals, then that would be uncreative.
Finally, bringing up Taric is interesting, because he's fairly masculine. He's a burly man in full armor who wields a massive hammer and a large shield, creates shields of crystals that he can impale his opponents with, and is in general an aggressive support. That's pretty far from my definition of effeminate. I can only think of one thing that would be inflammatory , but I'll refrain from making any unflattering assumptions about you, you give me enough to dislike as it is.
Seven: Please, you're too kind giving me all these nice names to call you. Also, what purpose does this interlude serve? A moment of self-realization, perhaps?
Eight: And I claim that most men (!) would agree with me that your position is complete and utter bull. I'm glad we're both not using anything to prove our wild generalizations, that would take far too much time.
The rest of your paragraph is more of a blatantly ridiculous double standard. If you were subtle about it, I could have had fun teasing the meanings from your words and making you look absurd, but you're so up-front about your bigotry you do my job for me.
Ninth: Yes, the words "flaming feminist" definitely make your argument seem rational and valid. Even more so is that you're randomly call Vi that, and yet there is no explanation or even mention of how Vi is feminist in any of your body. You're generally not supposed to introduce entirely new, unsupported information in a conclusion.
Also, feeling so strongly about what is properly male and what is properly female as expressed through way of aesthetics probably means you're not fine with equality on an ontological level. You may wish to put some more thought into that. However, since so far you've demonstrated a remarkable lack of thought in any of your points, I shall not be expecting anything revolutionary.