I'm really sorry to do this, but I've been gone a while and was reading through old posts. I came across the following and wanted to offer a very brief comment on it:
If you believe like most retard SJWs/feminists believe, that gender is a social construct, then yes being a trans person is obviously contextually a choice someone makes.
If however you care about science to some degree you have to be open to the idea that people can be born with brains and bodies that don't match.
I don't want to go back into the depths of this debate, and apologies if I'm stating the obvious. I don't mean to be condescending, but I just want to be sure this is clear, because I'm not certain it is.
In short, when cultural theorists claim that gender is a social construct that doesn't mean that individuals actually construct their gender. They're saying that genders are sets of expectations and behaviors that cohere around sexual identities but are not biologically determined by those sexes. To be explicit about it, the sex "male" constitutes someone with a penis, certain chromosomes, hormonal levels, etc; and these biological elements certainly have some impact on an individual's behavior. The gender "masculine" designates those behaviors associated with maleness but not necessarily determined by maleness. For example, masculinity culturally evokes things like rationality and aggression (to use very crude examples), but that doesn't mean that a heterosexual man can't be occasionally irrational and non-confrontational and yet identify as a man. This is what is meant by gender being a construct - it isn't biologically deterministic, although it may be associated with aspects of the body that are biologically determined.
If a man finds himself attracted to other men, he's participating in an activity that is ideologically associated with the gender "feminine," but this doesn't mean that he chose to be feminine. Regarding more pronounced aspects involving appearance, it's true that many transgender people choose to embellish their identity; but this doesn't mean they chose their gender. They're simply choosing how to present their gender.
Now, my final point, which I think addresses your comment most directly: obviously, it is possible for someone to feel one way and present themselves another, for any number of reasons. Someone can experience homosexual attractions and yet choose to publicly display himself as a masculine heterosexual. This is definitely true, and qualifies as a choice. But we have to remember that the construct "masculine" is not a choice, is it a set of socially conditioned expectations; in other words, an individual does not wake up one morning and decide "I'm going to construct a masculine gender that wears high heels!" (or someone might think this, but that doesn't make it socially viable).
So, we should acknowledge that there is definitely an element of choice to how we present ourselves in a gendered fashion. After all, as Judith Butler says, gender is performative - it is implicitly bound up with how we are perceived. But the sets of expectations/behaviors that circulate around various gender identities are inextricable from how we choose to portray ourselves. That's the socially constructed element of gender. I believe that, in an ideal sense, we want to encourage people to behave according to how they feel, in which case the gender they identify with can't really be described as a choice, and certainly not a free choice.
Identity is a finicky thing, and if I'm being honest I think that trying to associate our behaviors with some kind of enigmatic core identity is an exercise in futility, indulging the metaphysics of a presence that doesn't actually exist in any stable or tangible form. I'm all for emancipating ourselves from archaic notions of identity and authenticity. But then, I'm a white heterosexual male. Saying I'm content to abandon the privileges of my identity is somewhat comparable to Will Hunting saying he'd rather not be a genius.
