I haven't read every single comment on this thread, because I had to work today. So I'm fine with conceding your point about transgender vs transsexual.
I also admit that as far as I'm aware, the number of transvestites and drag queens who identify as transgender is rather low. Higher than the general population, perhaps, but I really have no definite data on that. It's also true, however, that not all trans people experience significant dysphoria. That's neither good nor bad. It simply is.
What concerns me most is your hostility to the LGBTQ community. Yes, it's certainly true that our activism has frequently failed trans people. Particularly where the HRC is concerned, time and again the trans community has been thrown under the bus in the name of LG rights. (Bi people also seem to get shafted, though maybe not quite as much.)
But who else is even trying to do the necessary work? Originally we were all put in the same box because straight cis people found us all freaky and weird, but some of us actually do believe in solidarity. For every judgmental "drop the T" white twink or TERF, there is at least one person like myself, who wants nothing more than for everyone to be acknowledged for who they are on the inside. LGBTQ people aren't monolithic. Plenty of us want to listen and help in whatever ways trans people feel they need most. I hope you understand that.
You know how when you go over to a friend's house, and accidentally call their female dog "he" or their male cat "she"? Most people would then add, "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know."
Why does a human being deserve less courtesy than that?
Gender dysphoria also applies to those who are transgender, in other words, those who (for whatever reason of their own) choose to forgo surgery and/or hormones. You keep using "transsexual" as if it's a synonym for "transgender", and you should know better. It makes me wonder whether you're misinformed or just a troll.
I would expect a straight or even a gay cisgender person to make this mistake. But you should know better. Same with your hatred.
Some drag queens do identify as trans. So do some transvestites. Nor is gender dysphoria unheard-of in nonbinary folk; far from it. I have a gender fluid friend with severe dysphoria, but it only manifests some days and not others. These issues are not nearly as black and white as you're trying to make them out to be.
As RuPaul so eloquently put it, the real tension between drag queens and the transgender community is that drag queens are all about making fun of gender, while transgender people tend to take it very very seriously. Notice how I'm not saying either position is "wrong".
I was originally a Sanders supporter, and I do also like the idea of breaking the two party duopoly... however, voting for a third party candidate in a national election is only a good idea if you don't live in a swing state and/or don't care about progressive policies at all. And I do. Beyond that, Gary Johnson is more pro-corporate than either Trump or Hillary, and Jill Stein has plenty of experience as a candidate but none holding actual political office. So here are my choices as I see them:
1. The candidate who is untrustworthy but qualified, Hillary. She will do a good job on civil rights, probably an okay job on workers' rights, and I expect her foreign policy to be very hawkish. She's a centrist: liberal on social issues, and much more conservative on economic and foreign policy issues. I am not a big fan of hers, especially after the questionable manner the DNC ran the primary (and how she said nothing about any of the ethical issues involved). However, she is running on a platform influenced by Bernie supporters and we have the ability to hold her to it. She is amoral but efficient and intelligent, traits that usually make for a decent head of state, even though I consider her a hypocrite and an opportunist.
2. The candidate who is both untrustworthy and unqualified, the Donald. Even if I grant for a minute that running a government is the same as running a business, which it actually isn't, Trump's business experience shows he's a terrible leader. Numerous bankruptcies, hundreds of employees and contractors that completed the work and never got paid, false advertising, the list goes on and on. Besides that, he's a hot mess, verbal diarrhea in a suit and toupee. The presidency calls for dignity and maturity, neither of which he possesses to any discernible degree. Even if it's true that he's only playing the bogeyman in order to make Hillary look better by comparison, and I admit it's a possiblity, that's not a good reason to elect such a bogeyman. He's not running a campaign, he's running a reality show where offensive is the new poignant. I'm not sure he even believes much of the hateful rhetoric he spouts... he's just pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get as much free media coverage as possible. There's no such thing as bad publicity, right? Please don't even consider rewarding that kind of thinking. I realize it's tempting to elect the equivalent of a wrecking ball, if you happen to think the federal government is the source of all our problems, but realistically all that will happen is he'll get himself impeached within the first year. He has no support left in Congress, and it would only be a matter of time before one of his mistakes was big enough to qualify as a high crime. Make no mistake: He's in this for shits and giggles, and that should be terrifying to anyone paying attention.
As for Hillary, I still agree with Robert Reich: Bernie was the best candidate for the system we *should* have, and Hillary is the best candidate for the system we *do* have. She's well connected, she knows how to make deals, and she's been planning for her presidency for ages. Not that this makes me like her any better, but there's still only one person in this race that's truly qualified for the office, and it's her.
% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis