It is my understanding that the GRC first came into being to allow same sex couples, where one was transgender, to marry (by allowing the transgender one to legally change sex).
It baffles me that the solution to the problem was solved by GRCs rather than same sex marriages, but still.
The original reason seems a 'good' legal reason, in that it enables the right of someone to marry without impinging on anyone else's rights.
I understand that there are (relatively) uncontroversial reasons to allow GRCs to continue to exist, with gatekeeping, for medical reasons, as the allow a person with gender dyphoria to feel happier about themselves.
That would be fine if we could stop conflating it with other legal rights.
Because I can't think of anything, legally, now that same sex marriage is legal, that anyone can do as a woman but not do as a man (or vice versa), other than enter a single sex space (on inherit a title, but obviously there will be an exemption for that.....).
And entering a single sex space that would require confirmation by birth certificate seems pretty controversial (prisons, sports, refuges), and pretty obviously open to abuse.
Perhaps we could add a new box onto a birth certificate, labelled 'gender' and at any time in your life you could populate that box however you liked, recording that although your sex may be male, you at the moment preferred to be female (or vice versa). Thus giving you a legal document that didn't cause such anguish, but still reflected facts? And single sex spaces stay single sex? And if entering birth sex spaces is a problem, have additional unisex ones?