A man applied for a GRC and was initially rejected. That was overturned at appeal, and he now has a GRC that says he is female, despite his identity being 'non binary'.
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/What-we-think/DACB-succeeds-in-pro-bono-Gender-Recognition-Act-appeal
From the judgement:
'Dr Longworth stated that the applicant ‘has a stable feminine non-binary gender identity and has lived in a congruent social role since at least 2015’. '
'That letter recorded the applicants ‘goals’ for treatment as being:
a) To achieve a gynaecoid body shape, including adult female breast
development;
b) To achieve a reduction in facial and body hair; and
c) To retain the capacity to have a functional penis, with capacity for
erection and genital sexual response.
Dr Longworth’s letter explained that there was a basic biological incompatibility
between the first two goals and the third. If the applicant were to discontinue hormone treatment, as she had attempted in the past, in order to achieve goal (c), then her gender dysphoria symptoms would be likely to return. If, however, she were to continue with hormone treatment the long-term effect would be reduction in sex drive and the development of erectile dysfunction. Dr Longworth advised that it was for the applicant ‘to decide what takes priority’.
'The Panel considered that the detail relied upon to reach a diagnosis of gender dysphoria was lacking and that the language used in the letter describing the appellant as ‘non-binary’ contradicted her assertion that she was a transgender woman. The Panel concluded that this did not accord with the binary approach required by the GRA 2004. The Panel was also troubled by the period during which the appellant had ceased taking testosterone blockers and they considered that Dr Longworth’s report highlighted the appellant’s incompatible
treatment goals, namely wishing to retain male sexual function whilst seeking female gender affirming hormone treatment, thereby undermining the appellant’s overall aim of being recognised as a woman'
'With regard to s 2(1)(b), that she ‘has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made’, the Panel had concluded that this element was not satisfied as ‘there is very little evidence that you are living in real life as a female’.'