Trisher, the word 'realise' is very loaded. 'Agree', or 'believe' might be a more accurate way to describe Rosie51's position, although she can, of course, correct me if I am wrong, but the way you are expressing your views is pitching you as the immovable 'right' position, and Rosie as in the wrong.
You may believe that this is the case, but the assumption that you are right, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand means that your argument is not built on logic but opinion.
Needing a medical diagnosis is not an abuse of human rights - denying someone such a diagnosis might be, as might refusing to treat them on the NHS, but ensuring that someone is not making a mistake is not denying them their rights, it strengthens them.
Also, no diagnosis is required for someone to live as a member of whatever gender they choose. It is only when they want to transition that they need to seek medical backing. Personally, I think that any male born person who wants to enter all-female spaces, or take places on all-female shortlists etc should need to have some sort of medical diagnosis to to so legally. Otherwise, legally there is nothing stopping them from 'living as female', whatever that means.
Gaga, my postgrad research has not included anything on gender politics, but I did find the theories interesting back in the day. All texts of that nature need to be seen in the context of their subject genre though, and I'm not sure which subject would cover the current situation. Sociology? Psychology, Politics?
I have taught research methods, however, and in all of those cases, I would want to know who had funded the research, and why. I would look on research funded by Mermaids very differently from something funded by Stonewall, to use hypothetical examples, and it is not always clear from reading a general textbook, (or one referring to research outside of its specialism) who is behind the studies to which they refer.