The full report is a good collection of press examples.
I do think so many terms are so poorly defined that using them indiscriminately just doesn't convey truth, it obfuscates.
"A major reason for confusion is the lack of a clear legal definition of the terms “trans” or “transgender”; or a generally agreed public understanding of the term. A selection are summarised below but they are contradictory. This problem was noted in the Equality and Human Rights Commission response to the debate on conversion therapy"
...
"In other words, to be transgender does not require a person to look different to their biological sex, or have hormone treatment or surgery. It is about the way a person feels."
So many people - even people on FWR - don't seem to have grasped this - constantly referencing 'wearing lippy' or 'putting on a dress'. That is not what makes someone trans. I would be glad to get away from this view/assumption.
The interesting bit to me is this:
"Trans-identified Defendants: Is it accurate to call them trans?
The lack of a clear definition of “trans” means it is possible for anyone to identify as transgender.
Advocates of self-ID (a policy that would give this legal status) would state that people are the gender they identify as. But in court, identifying as trans carries incentives which make the situation less clear. There are long-standing concerns amongst psychiatrists and others working in the criminal justice system that criminals cynically and falsely claim to be trans."
and
"Some male offenders are falsely claiming to be transgender. There is no way for a journalist to establish whether someone making that claim is genuinely transgender or not. This is partly due to conflicting definitions of transgender, and partly due to the practicalities of establishing the reality behind the claim. In these circumstances, it is important that the journalist makes clear this is a
claim, not an established fact"
One of the questions that TRAs never answer is - if you are whatever you say you are, are you stating there is no such thing as 'falsely claiming' to be trans? It appears that it is the declaration that defines you as trans. And completely ignores the possibility that someone might say something they do not believe to be true.
I think this is a point worth unpicking, as it's at odds with everything else assumed to be a definition of 'trans'. Surely there must be some criteria, otherwise it is literally a label. And if so, then we cannot say 'you are whatever you say you are'.