My youngest DD and myself are very intolerant to gluten. While we do eat it from time to time, it always causes some issue. I may end up with chills, cramps and the dreaded D. My DD usually just ends up on the toilet a couple of times and she's fine. We both tested negative for celiac, but the docs said that the test are not always accurate and being that our symptoms go away with elimination of gluten to stick to gluten free. I believe my gallstones were attributed to gluten along with high cholesterol and high triglycerides (on previous whole wheat, low fat healthy diet). Drop the grains/gluten everything normalizes. Anyway, many docs will not advise going back on gluten just for performing the test (a test that has high false negatives) and will diagnose you based on your history and dietary improvement.
Anyway, my next statement is concerning insurance. You should really consider whether or not you really want this as a medical diagnosis on your record. Many insurances will deny you or have huge increases in your premiums for such a condition. My sister has ulcerative colitis and she can not get insurance with many companies. She found one that would accept her at a very high cost. Hope this does not rub anyone the wrong way. Just trying to inform that many people have had to weigh the benefits of diagnosis for a condition that has a very easy self-directed treatment. IF you needed medicine or other medical care outside of dietary restrictions, then obviously you would go for diagnosis. I'm not knocking insurance, just want to bring this up as it can be a huge issue for some people.