[citation needed]
EDIT:
Reason I ask is that, when fighting for the cause of minority groups, it doesn't help to make claims that are easily shown to be false--it hurts your credibility, and by association, theirs.
The "x are everywhere" is what, for example, brought us the Iraq War and the TSA and all the rest...just good marketing whipping people up into a frenzy.
EDIT2:
Fine, for the downvoters, here's some citations (because apparently that's too much to ask):
Various studies show a rate of between 0.1-0.5% of people identifying as trans ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-siz... ).
A 2011 study by the UCLA Williams Institute found there to be around 700,000 trans people ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-d... ).
Anyways, I don't think any reasonable person would say that 5 people in 1000 would be enough to support the claim the GP put forth.
Anyway, if 5 in 1000 (as your own link states, these numbers are inherently difficult to quantify — but i'll go along with it) is not enough to qualify as everywhere, what is? What's your exact limit on everywhere? 1 in 500? 1 in 100? 1 in 10?
The suicide rate in the US is ~12 in 100'000, but you didn't seem to think mentioning it hurt OP's credibility (or, by association, the credibility of people who've committed suicide).
Furthermore, I reject the idea that identifying a subculture means that you are dismissing that subculture.
The fact that subcultures can be voluntary, whimsical, or ephemeral doesn't mean they have to be, and I certainly don't assume any lack of seriousness or significance to the notion that someone is a member of this or that subculture.
That is not at all what 'radical' means in the context of 'radical sub-culture'. The definition you're looking for is one of:
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
I guess you could argue that trans people fall under definition # 2 from the perspective of many (most?) people, but i also think that 'radical sub-culture' generally implies some kind of conscious action — i don't think that simply existing as a member of a minority makes you inherently 'radical'.
If you're not sure what someone means, consider asking them rather than complaining about it. Transitioning to a different gender from one's birth default is (for the time being) a radical change involving extensive medical evaluation, a lifetime drug regimen and ultimately major surgery, to say nothing of the social difficulties.
Neither have positive connotations, but "fundamentalist" is worse. Fundamentalism specifically invokes ideas of religious fundamentalism, particularly "religious right" style protestant beliefs.
"Radical" on the other hand is used in a more diverse set of cases. It invokes thoughts of any number of political or religious beliefs that are either outside the mainstream or do not conform with progressive western values as they are traditionally stated.
I don't think either is dismissive. Descriptive, with negative connotations, but being critical is not the same as being dismissive.
Suicide is everywhere. Trans people are everywhere. Minorities are everywhere. Tumblr just isn't sweeping it under the rug as much as some other sites.