To me, no.

It's incredibly difficult to define fetish but I'll try. I think it's a sexual attraction to an activity or an aspect of one's sexual partner that is either totally irrelevant, or counter-productive to our genetic wiring of wanting to continue our gene line.

Now that sounds incredibly complicated. What I'm saying is that being attracted to the opposite sex isn't a fetish cos it's what our Darwinian genes are wired to do. Attraction to nice feminine breasts etc. is not a fetish because we're genetically wired to be attracted to characteristics that suggest the partner is going to be fertile and feminine. But if the attraction extends to completely oversized breasts to the point where it's dangerous to health, then the opposite argument applies (our partner is now anything but "healthy" or well placed to continue our gene line).

Atraction to amputees is a fetish cos it's the opposite case. Same with homosexuality: it's entirely contrary to our genetic disposition widen our gene pool. Incest as well given what we know now about the eugenic concerns. Something like roleplay/costuming or BDSM or shoe fetishism is entirely irrelevant.

It's probably a flawed definition cos I haven't thought seriously about how to define a fetish, but there you go.