You simply stated your preference. You presented no sound reason why anyone ought to tolerate your prejudice.
It seems that you don't know to read either.
I never said anything about my preferences.
EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp
E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%
"I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"
"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan
On the OP, I am not sure I want to discuss this subject because there's a risk the shithole is going to return, lol. But seeing how trans people often struggle with funding and there is a direct correlation of the transperson's health and their ability to gain access to treatment to alleviate dysphoria, I'd say that to any employer who has hired a person who is trans, it is in their best interest to provide insurance that helps the transperson to cover their medical needs and expenses. If they do not do that, I suppose yes, they have the right to fire the person as they have the right to fire any person who is not fit to perform their job as they should due to their medical history, as long it is not done so based on the fact the person is transgender. An employer has no right to decide what kind of insurance coverage is allowed solely based off the notion of judging people's needs due to rage, gender, religion and the like. That is discrimination. If a person is fired, it has to be because they cannot perform their job, and if insurance coverage is denied, it must be based on general reasons e.g. a matter of costs.
Also, a lot of the medical treatment that a transperson requires is also medical treatment that regular cisfolk require e.g. access to hormones. That employers do not allow coverage of surgery is more understandable from a cost-perspective, as long denial of coverage is not done on the basis of it being uniquely related to the fact that it relates to the treatment of gender dysphoria. However, since access to hormones is something beneficial for most people who suffer a hormonal deficit (the medical reasoning behind providing HRT to trans people is that they suffer a hormonal deficit of their proper sexual hormone), if a transperson is denied access to hormones but a cisperson is not, then it is discrimination. If an employer refuses to cover any hormones, period, then it is not discrimination since it does not base the judgement on the nature of the person's identity and the like, but is applied equally regardless of who it affects.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with socialism, but I suspect the OP has a couple of screws loose in the first place, so.
And it's now in the news..... Suggesting incentives to keep the morons from procreating. Next will be a license to produce children. I'm in agreement with this, however surprised to witness application in this decade. Gene modification is here, it only seeks acceptance. Social medicine is the logical precursor to licensed birth.
This will be the new haves and have nots, based on government authorization and proper gene selection.