To be honest, Sunnibee, I'm regretting a little responding with a sarky post, as some of your posts on the diagnosis issue are sounding fairly reasonable to me as an assessment of "trans" as it used to be more commonly understood, as well as thoughtful and polite. Apologies for that!
But the group on which you seem to focus is that with which I have most sympathy in this debate (that and so-called "trans children", because a large proportion of those currently labelled such are, the evidence suggests, likely to have been misdiagnosed or not even formally diagnosed).
And therein lies the issue, for me at least...
That previously careful diagnosis of a miniscule number of individuals has expanded into an ideological framework that does, quite explicitly and emphatically, claim that it is about feelings. As such, on an individual level, it's arguably doing considerable damage to people who don't fit the criteria you post. And on a societal level? Well, read any thread in FWR.
I think both of the threads of discussion here - what "trans" is and what a clinical review should be - are coming up against this issue. It complicates every aspect of the discussion.
It's also, arguably, complicated even the original parameters for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, insofar as these diagnostic criteria are somewhat problematic from a feminist perspective, legitimising - in a sense - gendered roles in a way that we argue could be harmful. In the sense of trans-as-dysphoria, I can see these as helpful signifiers of a complex condition. In the sense of trans-as-identity, though, such an approach has ballooned into reductive simplifications which are doing myriad damage.
All this also, of course, raises the relevance here of the complex intersection of some conditions, particularly in mental health, with embedded social and cultural idiosyncrasies (eg. shell-shock) in any case. We should always be alert to this, and this links, in part, I think, the gender critical thinking on both the issues being explored here.