Not in this case. The author seems to fit what we would call a TIM or transwoman today. He makes a distinction between what he calls "passive homosexuality", he uses the term inversion/invert for this, and "active homosexuality" or what he calls urning. The passive is a "womans soul" with female biology(according to him) and different from the active, of which he gives Oscar Wilde as an example.

He writes about longing to be a woman and underwent castration at age 28. The editor of the book in the preface makes no distinction between what we would today call trans identity and homosexuality, but by todays terminology he fits the former better than the latter. The terminology to make a distinction between the two was not present then but there are similarities with his writing and contemporary trans identified authors. If you have time I would suggest reading part of it, the entire book is online and there are several sections that mirror the reasoning and behaviors of trans identified individuals today. He also wrote a second book, "The Female Impersonators", which I haven't finished yet, but plan to get around to finishing and making a post on.

edit: I should edit to say that he is very clearly homosexual and his conviction that he is really a woman is likely influenced by the homophobia he lived with. His desire to be a woman and his surgically altering himself to be more like a woman sets him apart from other gay men at the time so he is cited by trans communities now as one of the earliest transwomen in America. But even aside from that he shows certain autogynophilic tendencies: https://ovarit.com/o/ItsAFetish/159824/suffrage-era-agp-1918-usa

So, was he a suffragist? If not, my always talked point remais the same: where were the suffragist TIMs?

He was definitely not a suffragist. He never mentions the suffrage or women's rights movement in the first book. In the second book he briefly mentions voting only to say that he is dismayed that he is expected to vote while being seen as a man.

But how could I push my way into the crowd of rough men always hanging (at that period) around the polling places?

The narcissism in that quote in underscored by the images of women who were beaten by police, arrested, force fed and otherwise assaulted in that same time period trying to gain the right that he is complaining about. He seemed to have a humiliation fetish which required women to have a secondary status. And he is very clear in his writing that he is not the "invert" in the sense of a gay man. He writes that he wants to be legally recognized as female and wrote "Could it be that I was a girl imprisoned in the body of a boy?" emphasis his.

His wanting to be female in the time period of the early women's rights and suffrage movement does not mean he should be read as supporting it any more than the men demanding to be seen as female now should be assumed to support women's rights today. Someone looking back a hundred years from now would make a mistake to assume men claiming a female legal status were supportive of reproductive freedom and women's liberation. The contrast of their selfish demands and dismissal of sex based rights only highlights that, as it does for the men from a hundred years ago.

Yea. I thought so. These men COULDN’T afford having women as equals. There are no suffragist TIMs