Maybe they're misinformed about the rates of gender dysphoria (I suggested a conservative correction to them based on the most reliable data I'm aware of).

Also, they didn't deny non-gender-dysphoric trans people as being valid. Indeed, they said, referencing trans women, "I’ll use she/her for you, as long as you appear as an individual of the gender want to be perceived of."

There was no conditional "if you receive a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria with sufficient stringency that you get 0.005% people passing".

It's just: you look the part, I'll act accordingly.

Now that might be a problem, and they might be misinformed about rates of gender dysphoria, but the problem isn't (at least isn't clearly) the one you're saying.

Whether or not they were to come back saying something else, third parties (e.g. me) can still read what they wrote and discuss the (conventional, explicit) meaning.