I've already mentioned several issues on the previous page.
In-groups, especially of people who have been through a struggle for recognition, tend to be exclusive. They tend to resent interlopers, especially those who are perceived to have had a "free ride". It's hard to be black when black-face is the stuff of drunken hilarity among rich white frat boys; once Black becomes universally Beautiful, some of those same old boys want to climb aboard the freedom train for political advantage... I can understand why that might make African-Americans angry.
But, obviously, that hasn't happened yet. It's still hard to be black in the USA. So, the woman who identified so much that she worked hard for black causes and changed her physical appearance to fit in must have been sincere.
Many sympathetic white people were active in the civil rights movement and have been working all long for social justice, just as many straight people have been instrumental in bringing about gay rights and equal marriage, just as many men fought for women's rights. Most of these comrades get no recognition. You could maybe understand them being hurt when the people they sided with - often at great cost to their standing in the powerful group where they
biologically belong; loss of privilege, and sometimes risk to their very lives - lump them in with "the privileged".
Mainstream conservative society has pejoratives and rough treatment for the fellow-travelers of upstart minorities. But, unless you're a famous martyr or champion, there is no
category for friends and supporters of a minority. I suppose, if one is dedicated enough and needs a category to fit into, she'll identify with the people she loves, rather than the ones she's opposed and left behind. To be rejected by her chosen people must be devastating.
Imagine Naomi telling Ruth, "Nah! My god and my people don't want a Moabite among us."
I believe this is quite different, psychologically, from gender identity. It's probably more like the experience of Korean war brides or colonial Britons who fell in love with India and went native.
The comparison in the essay is valid from the perspective of allowing people to self-identify, rather than forcing identities on them according to superficial perception, though its central argument relies too heavily on the presumed acceptance of transgendered individuals - which is far from a given. I'm interested in a bigger issue, to which this an entry-point.
Maybe you’re thinking about how else people can choose to identify?
Yes, I've touched on several examples.
What about psychological problems? How are we to distinguish between insane and sane needs/demands?
Case by case, situation by situation, person by person. If you have insufficient information or you're not qualified to judge,
don't. If there is a decision to be made, ask "What's the potential harm?" rather than "What's comfortable for me?"
One thing for sure is that people require a foundation to work from. It appears that while gender identity is more innate it does still possess a degree of historical content - due to language, religion and general societal attitudes.
We all have foundations and backgrounds and baggage. We have to deal with that.