Weird aspect to this discussion that I've not noticed in this thread (maybe I missed it) and not widely discussed is the question as to how readily available it is to get a GRC.
I wonder if this is more of the issue and/or the solution.
I can see that if somebody can suddenly decide they are a woman and immediately have full access to single sex spaces then 1 hr later decide to revert to being a man, etc. then I can appreciate objections. But if somebody has to go through all the medical stages, complete "full op", etc. over several years then I can't appreciate the objections. Those are extremes not suggestions, there must be some balance between those two situations.
When Scotland made GRC a lot easier it did raise questions in my own mind.
Trouble is, it's a specialist area so there is no way most of us can have any real view, down to expert psychologists/professionals. Further complicated by somewhat limited NHS resources.
Ian
The waiting lists for a first appointment are incredibly long. I'm told that one person was told that the waiting list to where they applied was 17.5 year long though I think the average is said to be seven. What follows is then a minimum of two years of regular attendance, where both the medical and societal role progress are monitored. The physical appearance is also noted as being akin to the acquired sex.
The number of trans people with a GRC is only about 8400 despite the GRA itself being introduced 21 years ago. Of those the exact number of trans men and trans women is unknown - at least to me.
The lack of resources is the explanation for the waiting list, so much so in fact that when an all party parliamentary select committee considered the evidence, they recommended that self-Id (as is the case in other countries) was the only available fix. The then PM (Theresa May) accepted the recommendations, however she, the government and parliament was being kept busy by Johnson's nonsense and Brexit more generally. She was booted shortly after accepting the recommendations, and not because she had.
As for the position that Arthur one day, Martha the next, and back to Arthur the following day, the panel of experts do not simply look at the medical considerations, but rigorously examine the swathes of evidence required. Unless retired, the applicant must be employed, or at least job seeking ''in role''. They will expect to see a change of name by deed poll, unless the applicant already had an gender appropriate name. Every document must be in the name of the application - house deed, bank details, photo ID including driving licence and passport, all household bills, the lot. Arthur would need to extensively demonstrate by documentation that they live as Martha. Additionally the applicant must sign a statutory deed to say that they intend to live in society in the acquired gender until their death.
The one day Arthur next day Martha notion is a fallacy intending harm to reputation of these people, as is the false allegations that these people transition in order to get closer to women in order to abuse them - there is no evidence that this happens.
