I find it amusing you chose the extremely controversial changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as your citation,
 [@catchamber]. You do know that those alterations, as with the ones that affected related gender dysphoria and Autism were and are extremely suspect, correct? They might be "official" changes, but there is still debate on their validity to this day and some mental health offices do not recognize those changes. Why would someone do this? 

It was a matter of political correctness and funding, not science. If you look up any of the other forms of dysphoria, quickly compare them to those gaps that have since been created. Clinically, there is an argument for them understood as being mental illnesses. This is not my saying one way or another if they are, but fact is being intentionally removed from science because it "hurts people's feelings".

There is no standard of "must cause pain" only the standard of "it must not be the statistical norm for humans". That entire attempted argument is such an insane line of reasoning I needn't explain myself any further there, [@Odin] summarized it.

As for "Not present in many human beings.", can you show me where any statistical majority is present where people do not meet those criteria? Even a percent of the entire human population less than half is considered a minority, sorry. I can guarantee you that far, far, [i]far[/i] fewer than a percent of people would fail to qualify under that definition of human. That is not a large enough population to cater a special definition to or unique understanding of.

With regard to people being biased against genetically modified organisms, just sit back for a moment and observe the massive organic market and it's continued boom into mainstream. People wrongfully fear something as simple as food that has been altered to be more resistant to drought or even the use of antibiotics in meat animals, which is comparatively much more tame. There are even anecdotes of shipments of modified rice being donated to starving people in Africa that were destroyed because the local populace were convinced by activists thatit was somehow tainted; they then in turn misunderstood this as some sort "curse" or witchcraft. An anecdote certainly, but we are talking about humanity.

Bypassing the need for reproductive sex will not bypass the fact of what humans subconsciously tend toward in their preferencing for mate selection. They would logically choose, in most cases, desirable traits for their children or those they understood as desirable. Not that they are thinking to reproduce with their children, but what is generally known and understood as worthy of pursuit by either gender.

As I said before, when speaking to odds and likelihood, feel free to believe the fringes, but I will be here, placing my bets on what I can confirm as most likely.