I think the reason "assigned" became the preferred term over "identified" is because not only is it a bit unwieldy when you have to alternate between identified gender and gender identity as part of the discourse but also because a gender is assigned to a newborn after it has been identified. Not sure where the "whim" or "discretion" or "smuggled rhetoric" enter into it.
Virtually every other use of the word "assign" (that I can think of, at least) exists in circumstances where the assignment is at someone's discretion. Nobody says you were "assigned" a height, or a hair color, or a specific set of parents.
And if someone were questioning whether Jenner
existed, this would be a fine response. The quote isn't "I think I am something, therefore I am that thing."
So the question remains: when and why does one take priority? I assume you would not call anyone anything they asked you to call them, or at least you would not say they
are that thing simply because they said they were. So why is this situation different? I think this is a pretty fair, pretty simple question.
Doctors.
But seriously, that's kind of why there's all this psychiatry involved when it comes to undergoing full gender reassignment - to make absolutely sure that having the surgery is a conscious choice by a sound mind in pursuit of a clearly defined goal to help achieve physical and mental well-being and that there aren't any actual mental illnesses that could complicate matters.
Isn't this circular, too? You say we can tell with psychiatric evaluation, but the mere fact of undergoing the evaluations presupposes that it
can be reasonable to want this, which is the entire thing being questioned in the first place.
Not sure if cisgender people undergoing elective cosmetic surgery get similar treatment, but that's a debate for another time.
Probably not. But then, most cosmetic surgery is far more superficial and reversible. And I've never heard of someone being called a bigot for disapproving of breast implants. But since you brought it up: why not? If (not if, it's actually happened) someone says they're supposed to look like a plastic Barbie doll, can someone reasonably disapprove of the fact? Do you think people having negative opinions of plastic surgery indicates bigotry?
So while it is a fundamentally mental issue, I don't think it qualifies as a full-blown illness, especially not on part with body integrity identity disorder.
Okay, but the question was: why is one an illness, and not the other? Can you give me a simple rule applicable to human psychology that includes transgenderism but precludes body integrity identity disorder?