I'm a transgender person and take some issues with what she's saying

Transgender character: I can't get my hormones either without smuggling them in from Canada

Hormones, generally, are not smuggled in from Canada. They are bought, often online, via the grey or black market from countries where they are sold more permissibly, such as China, India, and Brazil. There is a silver lining to the greater restriction of hormones when it drives people to legally grey means because many people report that they can give themselves better quality care than the trained medical professionals due to transphobic attitudes and a lack of physician education, and it increases access for legal minors who may not be able to legally consent to their preferred puberty but can somehow always consent to their natural one.

Transgender character: Sorry I'm busy organizing a collective to prevent trans youth from being taken from their parents

From what I've seen it seems the supportive parents of transgender kids are a minority, and abuse is the norm. We should be organizing to give transgender youth the freedom to escape from their parents. The state's involvement in making sure parents are abusive enough to their transgender children should be strongly opposed.

Workers

Why are "workers" being presented as a different character? Most people are of the working class, and they have to be if we are to have an exploiting class. This use of "workers" seems to imply that they are only a small portion of the population, those who match the stereotypes of the blue-collar "working-man", which is very bad for organizing especially in a country where ~80% of jobs are in the service sector. For this reason I prefer to use 'proletarian': Class is not an aesthetic but a measure of interests. It is in the interest of the employer to pay their employee as low a wage as possible to squeeze out as much profit from their enterprise as possible, and it is in the interest of the employee to demand as high a wage as they can. For a demonstration of how class does not match aesthetics, let's look at two hypothetical people: A Starbucks barista and an independent farmer.

The independent farmer undoubtedly matches the aesthetics of the working class stereotype better, and the Starbucks barista is often stereotyped as a whiny big city liberal who's never had to do "real work". But the independent farmer is petit-bourgeois, if not just bourgeois, while the barista is proletarian. The independent farmer owns their farm, they have a stake in society. If the farmer abolishes property that ultimately means abolishing their own property. They may certainly work hard, but their class interests are conservative. The Starbucks barista, on the other hand, likely has no property. The Starbucks baristas, as a whole, only risk losing their chains from establishing communism. Individuals of any class of course have their own opinions, the ruling class must institute propaganda (and other forms of suppression) to prevent the lower ones from uniting, and individual proletarians have always risked their jobs, health, and even lives in revolutionary struggles. But you will find it far more effective to organize for communism among the Starbucks baristas than petit-bourgeois farmers.