People can change sex officially though, at least in a legal sense, that has not been up for debate or review at any point. The point of the GRR bill was to address concerns raised over the difficulties in obtaining a GRC, which had been raised since the introduction if the GRA in 2004.
As gender recognition is devolved the Scottish government undertook a public consultation on the matter in 2017, which found the majority of respondents favoured changes to the GRA that made it easier to obtain a GRC. They then produced a draft bill, which had cross-party input and support, and undertook a 2nd public consultation in 2019, where again the majority of respondents were in favour of the bill.
Westminster also undertook a consultation on the matter in 2018 but, despite the majority of respondents being in favour of removing most of the barriers to obtaining a GRC, chose not to act on it.
They then spotted an opportunity to sow more division and to distract the public from their own scandals and fiasco and so blocked the Scottish GRR bill from taking effect. What was their reasoning again? That we couldn't possibly have two different GRC standards as we need equality legislation to be uniformed across the UK? That sounds reasonable until you realise that equality legislation is not even remotely uniform across the UK (why devolve parts of it if this is your goal??), the Equalities Act 2010 doesn't even apply to Northern Ireland ffs (but I forgot they don't count as part of the UK in they eyes of Westminster).
Whatever your thoughts on the content of the GRR bill, the fact remains that the Scottish government followed the democratic process and had full parliamentary and public support for the bill. (You can argue as to whether or not there was true public support but, both consultations returned majorities in favour of the changes. If you disagree then you should have participated in the consultations and encouraged others to do so as that's how our democracy works.)
Westminster on the other hand ignored public opinion and rode roughshod over democratic process. If anyone has blindness in these areas it's those who refuse to engage with governments to ensure their views are legitimately heard and those who will happily ignore attacks on the democratic process because they have strong feelings on a subject.
Back to the topic of the thread. I feel it's a shame to loose an experienced, committed and passionate politician but as she alluded to herself it's better to go out willingly than being torn to shreds by your own party.