I think a post I made on the media representation thread is relavent to the question of whether relaxing GRC rules creates additional dangers/challenges for female people:
Why is relaxing the GRC criteria to make it effectively self ID a concern when trans women are already appropriating female spaces, resources and our political and social voices without one?
The gender supremacy movement (this being the movement for the supremacy of gender identity over sex) has mutated its concept of gender over time. The pattern has been to gain a legal concession based on one assumed, but not legally defined, concept of gender, then assert that right applies to people using a different and much wider concept of gender.
So, medically transitioned transsexuals were already living as women. However their actual sex, male, would be revealed by their legal documents. They wanted this concealed for their own privacy so the law gave them a legal fiction to allow them to conceal their birth sex. They didn't need the GRC to live as women, it didn't "change" anything.... except the tiny little detail that it established the concept of a legal sex which can be different to your birth sex.
The next step was to flip this concept 180. GS position is now not that a GRC is a legal fiction, changing documentation to facilitate a major change in a person's life, it's a legal record of fact, correcting documention that has been wrong since birth.
In other words, Legal sex was established as a legal fiction to disguise the sex of male people living AS women but the GS movement now uses it to claim the law recognizes male people can BE women.
So the concept the activists present of the trans woman mutates from the concept under which the GRA was shaped, ie men who are compelled to live "as" women, wanting to live as passing facsimiles of women and needing a GRC to maintain the il/de/lusion - to men who just are women, and who can be as openly, obviously male as they want because their gender isn't related to their body.
But now, the GRC, established as a legal fiction concealing birth sex to support the "as a women" trans women, becomes a problem because it was based in the assumption that the trans women needs the legal fiction to hide her maleness. In that model, her need for it - her "womanhood" if you will - has to be in some way proved or earned, and that doesn't match the new, was-always-a-woman construction where maleness is fine and a GRC is not a fiction for privacy, but a validation of the fact that she is and always was a woman.
So now the demand is for the law to change again to "catch up" with what trans women are already doing. "It won't make a difference, after all they are already in your spaces, and taking your resources, and replacing over your experiences with their own stories of womanhood"
But what it does do is move that baseline another jump, from a GRC being a legal fiction to preserve the privacy of someone living "as a" woman, to a enshrinement in law that a male person is a woman if that is what (s)he says (s)he is. The concept of womanhood is relocated in the law's eyes from the body to the mind/will, not just for trans women but for all women.
Far from the GRC being "just a bit of admin", Women as a legal class based on their sex and the needs of their sex have been entirely un/redefined by it.
So, the important thing isn't what someone can do the day they get their GRC that they couldn't do the day before. It's what further encroachment of male wants on female resources and lives will this new, legal reconception of gender will it be used to normalise next?