I think we should all remember each GM has a different style, perspective, and how they see their game. It doesn't mean people are on a "power trip" or "should just write their own story"; just because they are director doesn't mean they don't want a team of writers to make interesting collaborative scenarios. We should [i]try[/i] to understand other perspectives instead of just marginalizing them because we disagree...

[hr]

[quote]None of us like to be victims of bullying.[/quote]

Though I will argue that a setting has the right to define conventions (especially fantasy and sci-fi) regarding social perspective. That won't stop me from writing a mage in a world where they are persecuted as "weapons and not people" but I do understand not everyone is [i]treated[/i] equal even if they are all human.

[quote]but why as a player would you want to play transgender? [/quote]

Why is this an inquiry? Why?

Why the hell do I want to play a 4'7" adolosecent wielding a sniper rifle? Why the hell do I want to play [i]Batman[/i]? Why the hell do I want to play a pragmatic alien with staunch morals? Why the hell do I want to play a 1920s detective?

Because I [i]want[/i] to. 

[quote]If a GM said no cisgender character I would obey that rule.[/quote]

I wouldn't. That's a rule that shouldn't exist (and the same applies for other identities and orientations) as it serves no purpose than to open a door to bigotry based on maligned ignorance and/or discomfort. There are "guidelines" but there never should be a rule that states such a flippant thing as no [x] orientation characters.

[quote]No. A GM is not "essentially god." [/quote]

Absolutely not. But they are director, organizer, developer, and enforcer. You might view it as tyrannical, but I see it as keeping control of a creative work they've been really excited to have other folks participate in.