Looks to be one and the same Dr James Barrett.
What links the perspectives? From its earliest medicalised origins from Harry Benjamin onwards, the whole ideology is built on massively sexist foundations that a man can be any sort of woman on his say so alone and that the power to grant access to women's spaces lies with men and their desire.
Gender medicine seems to attract a certain kind of deeply sexist man (cf Harrop, Lorimer, Richards, Oakley off the top of my head) who is happy to give away the rights of women because he sees them as a generic, amorphous blob or simply an identity rather than fully actualised human beings with thoughts, opinions, feelings and rights of their own.
Combine that with only looking through the lens of what's in it or not for the male transitioner, it's no skin off his nose then if women's safety, health and wellbeing are put at risk or their privacy or dignity compromised - and he knows that women who call themselves men are unlikely to ever be a physical risk to men or that he will need to include them in his dating pool, so, meh...
As a gender identity specialist doctor, you may well be attuned to pick out those whom you believe are gaming the system but you still have a huge blindspot to the fact that, of necessity, the whole notion of gender identity is caning all the systems set up to mitigate the harms done to women in a sexist society.