I've always appreciated your reflections whether you label it self-absorbed 
in not. However I think there's an error in one of your premises.

"For
instance, some facets of the intersex movement have advocated for renaming
intersex conditions "disorders of sex development".  Some literature on
intersex ("DSD") and on homosexuality describes these as "natural human
variations" of anatomy and behavior.  And yet intersex conditions have clear
diagnostic categories in the ICD (the internationally accepted coding for
diseases) even though homosexuality no longer does in either the ICD or the
DSM. "

People grouped as  intersexuals have been for the last decade or two been 
striving for self determination of class membership and de-stigmatization.

Alice Dregger, a colleague of Michael Bailey, a colleague of Zucker has been 
promoting a "disorders of sexual development" diagnosis. It is my 
understanding the intersexed community is enraged about this new nosology 
which pathologizes their existence.

There is an irony here and the irony is in what radical feminism recognizes:

". Sex, in nature, is not a bipolarity; it is a continuum. In society it is 
made into a bipolarity. Once this is done, to require that one be the same 
as those who set the standard-those which one is already socially defined as 
different from-simply means that sex equality is conceptually designed never 
to be achieved. Those who most need equal treatment will be the least 
similar, socially, to those whose situation sets the standard as against 
which one's entitlement to be equally treated is measured. Doctrinally 
speaking, the deepest problems of sex inequality will not find women 
"similarly situated " to men. "

From Feminism Unmodified - Catharine MacKinnon - (1979 I believe)

Care must be applied in understanding this. MacKinnon is quite clear that 
"nature" is a construction and she is also clear that she uses sex and 
gender interchangeably as gender is a construction and the significances 
applied to sex are also distinctions. So radical feminism which has been 
given such bad press by the trans movement, has been in the forefront of 
challenging framings such as Dregger's who is now attempting to make 
intersexed development a pathology.

But there is a catch-22 created for by the structures of the medical 
industry. Medicine deals with what it sees as pathologies. If there is no 
pathology there can be no treatment - except for plastic surgery which is 
seen as "cosmetic" and therefore unnecessary. Because of the way treatment 
is funded, if there is no pathology there can be no treatment. So people who 
seek treatment need to have  a disorder attached to their existence before 
their issues can be addressed.

There's another wrinkle here. Consider the contrasting absense of 
stigmatization in populations having cleft palates and club feet. Then 
consider the huge stigmatization around contra-classed individuals and 
intersexed individuals. We must inquire about this disparity in levels of 
stigma.

The radical feminist explanation is that in western societies, sex as 
constructed takes the position that it does because the constructed 
signficances are constructed because of power. The stigma comes from a break 
down in constructions of power and that's a feminist concern.