It’s not saying “gender dysphoria is not a diagnosis that exists anywhere” it’s saying “believing yourself to be transgender is a substantial enough mental illness and flaw in character so as to preclude military service.”

This claims that having gender dysphoria is some sort of deficiency, and not just a non-standard identifier. This invalidates the identity of trans people, and calls into question their legitimacy.

Of course not, that would provide legitimate status, and would allow them to leave their husbands. Best to connect their presence here to the man so that their leaving is under threat of deportation.

I mean, saying that it’s a fight for “basic human rights” is a positional statement within the context of the time when the fight is needed. There are white supremacists (as individuals, not as a rule) out there who genuinely feel as though their rights are being “infringed” upon by anyone who’s skin lacks a perfectly porcelain pallor. In America at present, it’s being (disingenuously) claimed that squashing trans people is in the interest of the rights of women and children. Those pushing that agenda don’t believe that, but many of the followers do. If trans people are eradicated, it would be framed as a win for basic rights in the future.

More than that though, you’ve applied context to the poster above your that isn’t present in their original post, nor in the OP. Limiting the point to “basic human rights” has sort of set up the claim “all historical fights involving justified topics were justified.”