The way that I see it, you're describing something that's relatively universal here, at least within western culture, and in no way limited to transgender individuals. It's strange to me that the group that you would attach these extremely common human traits to is fringe subgroup. I'd imagine you'd have argued this about the gay community 20 years ago. Maybe I'm wrong. I would assume this has to do with the fact that it is the current hot button topic in debate when it comes to social regressionism, in an age where social regressionism and progressivism are especially pronounced in civic discourse. Note, I'm not trying to portray you here as anti-trans or anything, you seem to be looking at everything quite objectively from your point of view, but I do find it interesting. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you in some way, I haven't picked up a philosophy book in a very long time, so keep me honest here.
I believe that transgender individuals are being re-territorialised after the internet has decoded the libidinal flow. They are pathologically hysterical (I do not mean this disparagingly but in the Lacanian sense) seeking to ground their identity in a world bereft of community
You could argue this about identity fluidity in general, though I don't think it necessarily has to do with 'libidinal flow' here. When we fracture ourselves in to a thousand little sub communities, and when the energy of each different community places different demands upon us socially, we express and even exaggerate certain facets of ourselves. We don't have a unified front as we once did in regards to hanging out with our physical neighbors now, ones which we did not select to be a part of our virtual tribe, because we don't have to do that anymore. Humans will always pick the easier option of finding 'our people', whatever that happens to look like at the moment. Of course, there will be some individuals that are less 'socially sensitive' and adapt very little, undoubtedly encountering a bit more friction in social situations, but my point is that this is a point that could be made about a wide swath of society in general, maybe even most people.
Christianity by the time of Feuerbach had already been stripped of all relation to community, making it ideal for the internet age.
Relative to what, exactly? Every generation has different standards as to what is considered normal to everything, community included. Hell, in 1914, both sides in WW1 had a Christmas truce. They got out of their holes, traded, played sports, and generally acted in a way very consistent with what might be considered a very strong Christian community decades after Feuerbach died, all while they were supposed to be killing each other.
They re-territorialise themselves in a manner derived from that of Protestant Christianity whereby the self is related to an ideal self
I'd argue that this has more to do with being young than transgender, during that time in your life where there is a big gap between our actual selves, those seen by others, and our ideal selves. I think life tempers us in a way to begin to start to differentiate these two states. Of course, both our 'actual selves' (I do hate that term, it's a bit vague) and our 'ideal selves' are in a constant state of flux, which makes everything even that much messier.
As oil powered machines supplant human and animal powered villages as the relations of production in which subjects can interpolate themselves they must rely on symbols flashed upon the retina by Athena Parthenos sprung from the warty forehead of a Cthonic black oil Zeus to explain to themselves who they are.
There are more influences in this world that shape the culture that may lead to you wanting to adapt your identity to it in regards to specific threads now compared to the past, sure, but there were still many influences throughout human history that have done this as well. Is it really that different? Is there some emergent property here that you're trying to pin down where you feel as though everything has irrevocably changed relative to every period in history prior to now?
They are being made socially reliant on validation to a pathological level, and economically reliant on the pharmaceutical and pschiatric industry. They are reactionary.
Aren't we all socially reliant on validation as a universal thing, due to the fact that humans in general are inherently social creatures? The pharmaceutical and psychiatric industry are just modern replacements for things humans have always needed, medicine which may have previously been in the form of plants and placebos, quite honestly, and the psychiatric industry used to be a function of a priest or pastor.
Their revolutionary potential is inhibited by this, and to progress they must further de-territorialise beyond self and gender.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that each individual is unique. How they attach to the culture in the way that they do given their presented identities is quite different. Some attach via a need to attach to a cultural identity that has little to do with how their feeling inside, for others, it's an innate thing that screams at them in their head every day, without fail, since they were young. This could be any cultural marginalized group that becomes less so over time. I'm sure it's more of a spectrum than anything, just like all human behavior. For a great many, I have no doubt, this isn't the absolute central locus of their identity, but rather a single aspect of it. Is your analysis to paint the brush of all individuals in this category? Are you talking about a 'group' as a single identity, someone divorced from the individual?
The way that I see this argument, and I do appreciate you making it, that you are smart but young, looking to put everything precisely in its place and in a way that is extremely clearly defined. As you get older, in my experience at least, you find more ability to accept some measure of paradox in the world. Not every thing is just one thing, it depends largely on perspective. I suppose math and physics are the closest, but they are continually updated as well, just over longer periods of time.
Also, if you want more responses from more people on /lit/ or anywhere, you'll have to drop the excessive very specific references. It alienates people that do not currently understand them, and most people will not be willing to wikipedia them all. On the other hand, if you're looking to talk to a fewer number of people that are interested in doing that, or understand the references, you do you man.