I agree with you.
I don’t only vote in every single election and argue with strangers online. I go to city council meetings. I email and call elected officials to argue policy. I design, print, and uh… distribute stickers with political messages around town. I’m directly involved with government transparency efforts, and I’m about to start prying at my local RCV group to figure out why they haven’t attempted to field a ballot initiative

This is all still well within the bounds of electoralism. Certainly more than most people can say, but it doesn't truly get at the heart of what historically drives major change, ie organizing and directly contesting.

And, yes, my assumptions are purely assumptions, but they’re rational, I think - the majority of opinions here (or perhaps loudest voices) argue for not voting, and I cannot connect that sentiment to one that trans folks and/or POC would embrace, since that strategy helps the people who want to harm them. But your arguments - which I understand to be that folks should take action, openly acknowledge the failure of the current system, and still vote - would benefit trans/POC folk, and that does invalidate my demographic assumptions.

People here are largely not suggesting simply that change happens by sitting on your thumbs and not voting. People here are arguing that voting, and electoralism in general, is a lost cause for enacting positive change. You should spend a bit of time on Hexbear and see the demographics, the trans space here is one of the largest on Lemmy and one of the most active. I believe the last informal survey found around 40-50% of Hexbear is trans.

I have to be honest. I don’t think I’ll read The State and Revolution. I am interested in your viewpoint, but 100+ pages on a sort of weirdly organized website aren’t really something I think I’m capable of sticking through.
Is it a correct assumption, though, that your intent was to express that the revolution/change would occur through gradual and peaceful social change rather than violent revolution?

No, it's not a correct assumption. Gradualism has never worked in the favor of the Working Class, historically. State and Revolution does not mean individual acts of terrorism are the way to go, either. The point of the text is that reform cannot work in a bourgeois democracy because the class in power will not relinquish power willingly. See what happened to Allende in Chile. Instead, revolution is more of an inevitability, so it's up to leftists to prepare and organize so that the revolution can be properly steered. Occupy Wall Street is an example of a movement with no solid base. Same with Chaz.

I really do suggest reading Leftist theory, you can download State and Revolution and read it on an EReader if you like.