This might be one of the most incoherent 'non arguments' I have ever witnessed during my entire career on Personality-Database. This strategy has been used to convert multiple profiles into sensors simply by invoking the 'Intuitive Bias!' card and shooting down any legitimate form of argumentation for the sake of semantics. At first, this was merely a harmless catchphrase that was used on people who would say ridiculous things like "N=iNnovative and S=Simplistic", but because it was now been an informal replacement for legitimate discussion, it becomes a problem. Before I begin, I must mention that this is NOT to say that NO SINGLE PERSON can ever have a bias towards intuitive types over sensing types, but this is to say that somehow there is a majority or plurality of people who hold this sentiment, is a made-up scapegoat; the invisible enemy that does not exist.
Of course, this is a controversial claim to make, but I personally believe that people generally desire an enemy to defeat. After all, if there is no opposition, nothing is ever interesting. Unanimous agreement is always unentertaining and boring. If no enemy exists, then the people will inevitably create one, and I think this is an example of this. It sounds easy in concept too. If I were to accuse my opposition of being biased for or against people of a particular type, I can easily garner a group of people to defend my argument as the more 'reasonable' choice in comparison to the so-called 'biased' one. It's manipulative, it's scummy, and it's malicious. I will dismiss not just the existence of it as a social phenomenon, and I will dismiss the 'strategy' of it in argumentation.
Lack of Any Empirical Evidence or Data: There are no published statistics, surveys, or any kind of external data that would support the notion of an 'intuitive bias'. To be realistic, the percentage of people who are legitimately and solely vote N on everyone they like and S on everyone they dislike is likely less than 5%, and I believe I am being generous. I do not have any empirical evidence for this prediction either, but I believe my position is much more reasonable.
The Ability for it to Overtake Profiles: If Intuitive Bias was such a powerful phenomenon by which people day in and day out must continually mention, then why do the anti-intuitive bias people have enough of a collective to easily overtake profiles, especially those (in my humble opinion) who are not legitimately sensing but rather tools for a movement of virtue signalling? I would rather not list examples directly here but my opinions are pretty well known since people have personally asked me. That being said, the numbers for those 'against' any intuitive bias are easily demonstrated with multiple entries that flipped just in the past couple of months.
Bias Towards or Against One Type does not mean a Bias for All Types: All people have their own bias. I really like the type INFP for instance. But I also really like ISTPs. That does not mean I prefer all intuitives or all sensors. I simply like those two types and would rank them very highly in a situation where I would be compelled to do so. If someone is arguing that a character is INFP and you think they are ISFP, accusing them of 'intuitive bias' is ridiculous considering that they may simply have a bias towards INFP and not necessarily one for all intuitives. Assuming otherwise without any kind of evidence to back up such a notion is malevolent at worst and logically fallacious at best. I feel a lot of these situations amount to this, but only account for human nature rather than any kind of calculated endeavor against sensors. I also want to add that one person may simply prefer the intuitive version of a type more than the sensing regardless of any kind of bias. If I like INFPs more than ISFPs that does not mean that I hate ISFPs or that I would vote any ISFP that I like as INFP just to take out my so-called anger on ISFPs.
Whataboutism: Imagine if I were to go on every page that is typed majority sensing that I personally believed was intuitive, and write "Sensing Bias! This person is definitely INTJ over ISTJ!" I would be ridiculed and given 10 downvotes, which is probably a reasonable reaction, especially if I give no argument for why that is the case. But then I must ask, why is this same comment, the only difference being it says 'Intuitive Bias' instead of 'Sensing Bias', praised to high heaven and given double digit upvotes? It seems strange that the double-standards of reality seem to plague more than the world of politics, but also of typology. This is added on top of the fact that I have seen users with names like "Tired of Intuitives", "Intuitive Hate Account", or something as explicit, yet they are never criticized for their general mindset. But I suppose sensors are all angels who must be protected by the intuitive overlords and gatekeepers.
Red Herring: I am sure a couple people will ask the harm of mentioning the so-called intuitive bias if it is coupled with a legitimate argument for a sensing vote. However, I must introduce the Red Herring logical fallacy, by which a detail misleads others from the topic of discussion. If I were to argue that a certain character is ISTP against the majority INTP votes, it is irrelevant to bring up the potentiality of an intuitive bias (which is generally baseless), if my argument was good enough. It should stand on its own two feet.
Of course, people can have bias towards one type or another, or a certain group of types over another. There are various polls such as those here and here that prove this point easily. However, I do not think there is a widespread movement against those of the sensing type. This is a boogeyman created in order to flip entries to a preferred type, or to have a feeling that one is fighting the good fight. That being said, I hope everyone will be able to set aside all biases when attempting to type characters because it is supposed to be an objective process by which evidence and legitimate arguments are necessary to prove any typing. Therefore, stop claiming people have any kind of bias towards or against intuitives or sensors and simply make logical arguments supported by evidence and reasoning.