Self ID in the UK is not yet law. So to become a woman, it's not enough especially seeing as sex is a protected category. And it is neither illegal nor hate speech to use the correct (natal) pronouns to refer to non grc holding transppl.
I don't think this works unfortunately. Transwomen with GRCs have the protected characteristic of female sex for the purposes of the Equality Act and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Transwomen without GRCs have the protected characteristic of male sex and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
Whilst transwomen without GRCs don't have the full legal rights that they would obtain if they got a GRC to be treated as women in most circumstances, the limited case law in this area is fairly clear that they do have some more limited rights because of their gender reassignment characteristic - eg there have been Employment Tribunal claims where transwomen without GRCs have been able to sue for discrimination where they have been 'misgendered'/referred to repeatedly as a man etc. These matters are all very fact-specific and there haven't been many at all in the higher courts but I can see why this is difficult for MN.
The Fraud Act 2006 makes it an offence to dishonestly make a false representation with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss. So anyone without a grc is under law committing fraud if they cause a loss to natal women, who are protected under the equality act.
Firstly, we're skipping between the Equality Act (civil law) and the Fraud Act (criminal law) in a way that doesn't work IMO. Secondly, losses under the Fraud Act must be in terms of money or property (see s6).
Especially ppl like [Madigan] who have taken the place of women's officer when not having the legal requisites, ie grc.
I don't know whether LM has a GRC or not, but it's an unpaid position as far as I'm aware and if anyone wanted to allege that there had been a breach of the Labour Party rules that would be best done in the civil courts first (like that case a couple of years ago where it was alleged that Labour had breached its rules by not letting new members, who would likely vote for Corbyn, vote in the leadership election).
Shon and amnesty who caused a loss to female feminists in asking him to speak for us etc.
I don't see how this would work. Amnesty can hire who they like for feminist events. They could have an all male panel who identify as male if they wanted.
I can't see CPS being interested in either of these examples and a private prosecution would fail IMO.
Important disclaimer: I don't think the law in this area is very good. I am just explaining it. Please don't think that I endorse it.