Can one reasonably believe that acceptance of transsexuals in the U.S. is a much bigger deal than NSA surveillance?

Nope. Not even in the slightest.

There will always be those who are marginalized on the edge of society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to address those issues, but trying to reach some sort of utopia where everyone is perfectly included in society is delusional at best.

On the other hand, the NSA revelations present a pretty clear path to totalitarianism for 100% of the population. It would be pretty hard to argue that such a result can be outweighed by much more that doesn't include some sort of large swath of death.

I know from your past comments that you probably disagree with my "clear path" statement, so just to make sure... At it's absolute highest projection the transgender population is ~10% of the US. It would be extremely hard to argue that the NSA's overreach in power effects a smaller percentage than that, and even harder to argue that having a governmental organization with no accountability would be a positive influence on any portion of the population. And that's not even addressing the butterfly effect of so many of the NSA's programs.

A quick thought experiment: The two issues might be more intertwined than you think... any society that accepts transgender/transsexual individuals must contain some semblance of privacy. The NSA is an active opponent of any kind of privacy we hope to have. Thus, you could draw a straight line from NSA abuse to the further acceptance of LGBTQ individuals in society.

Edit: I hate calling out anon downvoters, but I'm gonna break my own rules and ask anyone to challenge my assumption that any kind of social reform takes precedence over the subversion of our fundamental political system and basis upon which we derive civil rights. (Pro tip: you can't, because civil rights are a priori a requirement of social reform)

Intolerence of gays and transexuals is something that has extreme impact on a significant minority of the population right now. NSA spying may have an impact on 100% of the population in the future, or it might not. I think reasonable people can disagree as to the probability of "totalitarianism" and I think, instinctively, the public values that probability very low.

I don't disagree with the first sentence, but you can't deny the fact that the NSA has stored private information on most, if not all, American citizens.

Regardless, it's starting to sound like you're encouraging a false dichotomy. Like I said, it's not unreasonable to believe that by restricting the power of the NSA you're creating a society that would be more accepting of LGBTQ individuals. I can guarantee you a freer society is a more accepting society. At the same time it's kind of silly to talk about prioritizing positive change when realistically as modern individuals we probably have enough time and intelligence to devote support to more than one cause, but when you asked the question I wanted to make it clear that you cannot have the positive rights of marriage and equality without the negative right of privacy.

I don't see how a disorder[0] is intertwined with privacy. Are you referring to medical history?

[0] Just in case someone thinks I'm making this up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

"Outing" yourself is a serious consideration for transpeople, because they have no idea how their families, social circles, or employers will respond once they are aware. Depending on where you live, the reaction could be anything from awkwardness, to ostracism, to physical violence. So there is a much greater need for them to maintain privacy and separate their normal lives" from their trans lives until (and if) they are ready to drop that bombshell.

Imagine you are a closeted transperson, and you go online to talk with people about your issues. Then one day, some major web corporation decides that real names are the way to eliminate online trolling, and retroactively attaches your real name to one of the accounts you were using to maintain your presence. Now all of a sudden, your entire family learns of your condition, when you had no intention of telling them at that time. Worst case scenario, you're a teenager or other dependent that wasn't planning to tell your family until you could support yourself, and your parents decide to kick you out of the house, making you homeless, or force you into therapy and onto antidepressant medication that leads to your suicide.

Because of these very justifiable fears, transpeople can be among the strongest proponents of privacy and online anonymity.

It's easier to understand, and easier to have a visceral, attention-grabbing (and, more importantly, attention-keeping) reaction to.

That's what appears to matter most in American "news" reporting.

I think that it's easier to sell soap with a Jenner story than a Snowden one.

People are perfectly well capable of understanding that the government is reading all of their emails, text messages and facebook posts.

The problem is that advertising dollars come from big corporations that make money off of the snooping and that well will run dry if anyone suspects that reporting will have a negative effect on next quarter's revenue.

Instead of "Hey look! These Fortune 500 companies are getting paid millions of dollars to tell the government everything that you do.", we get "Hey look! This guy's doing something weird!"

That's not what I asked. My question is, can a reasonable person believe that the acceptance of transexuals in mainstream American society is a more important and newsworthy concern than NSA surveillance?

Depends on what you mean by "important" and "newsworthy". If you mean a topic that people will care about and that will sell papers, then hell yes. The general principle is, the more important (in affecting individual, social and planetary future) a topic is, the less mainstream cares about it.

I know that's not exactly what you asked, but my response is relevant, if indirectly.

That is to say, no, they can't. But mainstream news in the US isn't targeted at reasonable people — or, more strictly speaking, it isn't targeted at the reasonable parts of people. They're going for the visceral, emotional reaction from the audience, because that's what keeps people tuned in long enough to throw ads at their eyeballs.

I think rayiner disagrees with you (and I think I do too). It is reasonable for someone to care more about the rights of trans people than to care about the surveillance statement.

There are two levels of importance. That which you as a person think is important, and that which truly is important to you.

In the abstract, absolutely. In these two specific instances, absolutely not, not if it were actually reasoned out. The publicity surrounding Jenner is a media phenomenon, and mostly symbolic. Reporting surrounding the specifics of the Patriot Act expiring and the USA Freedom Act passing are tangible and have wide consequences.

I believe you mean Caitlyn Jenner.