I hear the message about having choices as something related to behaviors and not feelings / emotions.

I can't choose how I feel about something -- I feel what I feel.

But, I can choose to start acting differently despite (or maybe, because of) that feeling / emotion.

I think the choice / no-choice dichotomy comes up because a lot of times we get stuck on the idea that we can only act / behave differently when we feel differently (enough to make the behavior change). And, obviously dealing with a traumatic history can take time and consequently, feelings / emotions can take a really long time to shift.

But, in reality -- as most folks have experienced at some point or the other -- taking action even before one feels ready / motivated to do so can change how one feels about it. So yes, a traumatic history can predispose one to more easily fall into certain emotional traps but one still has choices in what can be done with it.

Else, in the absence of choice, it feels almost impossible to consider ever getting past trauma -- E.g. going to therapy to deal with crap that happened is itself a choice.

I also think the choice question can get really hairy really fast when talking about it with respect to trauma because one could easily say that the people who abuse were also (almost, by definition) those who were abused.

But, not all those who were abused become abusers themselves -- what made the difference? One can obviously not pinpoint any one specific thing but I'd be hard-pressed to say that somewhere along the way, folks' choices about what to do didn't play a significant role.