That would follow, yes. I think it would be very rare to fail (though who knows), but for those who are genuine it would shield them from criticism too, being able to say 'a doctor/medical expert interviewed me X times before agreeing my transition was valid'
Way back when, that's exactly what happened.
When Parliament passed the GRA, it was understood that only about 5000 people, largely men I believe, would need it.
Of course, if you are basing a medical exemption certificate on words someone says out loud, you're going to start having to include people who don't fit your criteria, but can pretend they do.
Which is why exceptions were written in to the act itself. Unfortunately, these exceptions are no longer implemented.
Parliament made the mistake of making them discretionary. They thought that public opinion would uphold sex segregation where it was necessary.
But with the fierce lobbying and the sheer number of males who now identify as women, the exceptions are more than useless.
Which is why the GRA needs repealing.
One of the examples of an exception was a rape refuge. It was understood that women who have been raped and sexually assaulted would need an all-female environment in which to recover.
But you now have a transwoman running a Scottish rape refuge who says that the women survivors there who don't agree men are women, are bigoted and need to 'reframe their trauma'.
Another example was female sport. No one in their right mind thought that men would compete as women. And now you have, nine males competing as women in the bloody Olympics.
So, and I hope you understand that this is said with a degree of understatement, women are pushing back.
Women are being sexually assaulted in female prisons by male rapists, victims of male rapists are told they are bigoted if they don't agree men are women, and men are competing as women in female sport across the land.
The answer is no.