I feel that your vocabulary (like ‘cult of identity’ ) reveals that you are taking just as much of an ideological position. You have decided that this ‘gender dysphoria’ is all nonsense, so you look to the DSM when convenient, and dismiss it as arbitrary when rhat suits you.
I repeat, do YOU consider that homosexuality is a mental disorder, now? Yes or no. Forget psychiatrists; we are talking of your views and positions.
Maybe I’m not expressing myself clearly and maybe the way I use language is not the same as the way you do (addressed generally, not to an individual).
My “truth”, my “reality”, my “experience” may not be the same as yours. So, I beg to differ.
I hope society will progress to a time when none of this matters and there are no absolute “rights” and “wrongs” where gender is concerned.
You say that like it is evidence that it is made up. Consider that in the general population, the vast majority of people do feel ‘male or ‘female’. So why wouldn’t that be the perceived identity (or self-image since the word ‘identity’ seems tainted) of nearly everyone that feels this conflict? And if there are others that feel neither male nor female, then surgery and hormones would be unnecessary and you won’t see them in some process.
It is, without rational it’s a religion. Science has always stayed the other side of that argument.
@Earthdave , I used “cult of Identity” to distinguish what the activists say from science/medicine. It won’t take long for you to check how much science is behind gender ideology 
- there is barely any, and no long-term comparative study - which is the biggest criticism of the current approach.
It may be that the tide is beginning to turn in the US (see the recent case of Fox Varian) but I’m not very optimistic.
Gender dysphoria is a real condition. Gender incongruence is a much more recent addition to the lexicon, coined to fit in with the current ideology (which asserts, for example, that it is not a mental disorder for a man to feel like he is in the wrong body). I know people who have these conditions.
I’m very flattered that you are so keen on getting my opinion about the categorisation of homosexuality - or would be, did your question not bear all the hallmarks of a “gotcha” 
In fact, you could have worked it out from what I’ve already said.
If a gay person is distressed by the fact s/he is gay, then whatever the current psychiatric opinion is, then s/he is suffering from dysphoria, which (see above) is a mental disorder. If not, not!
Some of them make damn fine beer…
Is this thread’s version of Stella’s recipe? It certainly needs something along those lines to act as a palate cleanser, or perhaps eye bleach…
I forgot that one 
You’re always welcome to make a useful contribution, of course. But feel free just to ignore it otherwise.
As our environment is experienced through our own senses and processed by our own brain I think we are absolutely right to refer to ‘my’ reality, it has to be subjective simply because of physiology, eg a friend of mine is very colourblind, we don’t see the same thing and our realities differ markedly.
Or from the effects of social pressure to heteronormativity. I mean if you grow up thinking certain people are an abomination and to be cast out vilified made pariahs etc and then discover you fall into that category you’re unlikely to be happy about it, it still doesn’t mean you have dysphoria or any mental disorder.
The cause of the dysphoria (which is likely to be complex) doesn’t affect the diagnosis, does it?
Calling something “heteronormativity” is begging the question as much as if I described the same social factors as “normality” (though that, in its technical sense, is more accurate!).
I think what you’re calling “my reality” is plainly - from your description of it - your perception of reality. It’s only beyond the Looking Glass that that sort of proposition applies.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Descartes covered all of this centuries ago.
You know Porridge as well as I do that what is real is subjective, just look at religion. Why is a particular deity ‘real’ and others not?
That’s a really interesting diversion (you knew I’d find it irresistible, of course 
which is one of the joys of SF).
It’s something I’ve been thinking about recently.
What sort of God would allow his creatures to prove or disprove his existence?
I’m not sure that’s possible…
Depends on if you believe the Bible, or not.
The first words are something like “God created heaven and earth” et al. So his existence is clearly defined so, no need to prove anything.
I’m not sure that’s how proof works
Or her.
Ah, but what sort of proof?
Scientific proof?
Mathematical proof?
The criminal standard of proof?