OK.. the fact that you pointed out 'trans status' and 'gender identity' are not protected characteristics means you are one of only two things (though, admittedly, there is huge overlap between the two).

The first possibility is that you think you know something about this subject and so are acting the pedant. I'll given you the benefit of the doubt and entertain this.

You're quite right about neither of those things being a protected characteristic. Gender reassignment IS however. What, 'Robbie' is the burden of proof for this particular protected characteristic? Let's see what the actual statute says eh? Oh and for reference, it's the Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 7. Here's the exact wording (since we're pursuing pedantry, let's not forget):

(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

No mention is made of any need for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Indeed the EHRC guidance to interpreting and implimenting the EA2010 points out that at any such insistence may be unlawful.

Neither is any mention made of the need for proof that one is currently, or even intends in the future, to access medical intervention with regard to the reassignment of their gender. Medical intervention, in part, or in 'full' is not a requirement to qualify for legal protection under the characteristic 'gender reassignment'. Some trans people may not be able to afford such medical treatment. Others may not be eligible by other criteria. And for others it will simply be neither personally desirable nor necessary for them to assuage their gender dysphoria, if indeed they even suffer the condition.

On the contrary, the law does not at any point require a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

So how about clothing etc? Well, again... There's no requirement, in any way, shape, or form, for anyone to conform to any notions of gendered expression. Such requirements are entirely absent from the statute itself and indeed, the EHRC guidance once again warns this may be unlawful. The guidance DOES, admittedly make this statement '...it might be unlawful to exclude a trans person from the single sex service of the gender in which they present or limit their access to the service.' This means that service providers should typically, and VERY BROADLY, treat service users as they appear, but bearing in mind that exclusion from a space is subject to strict controls. Exclusion, not inclusion.

And as a brief aside, such retrograde, reductive, sexist attitudes have resulted in a growing number of cases of discrimination against cisgender women (especially butch lesbians) whose appearance has been judged lacking sufficiently in 'femininity', resulting in them being ejected from women's toilets and changing facilities.

All of this results, in practice, with me, a trans woman, being treated as any other woman. Even those, to whom it's apparent I'm transgender, have no right to request 'proof' of my right to access female-only spaces. As shown above, neither the law itself, nor the interpretation guidance mentions 'proof'.

And if proof is not required then how does one establish one's protection under a listed characteristic? Simple. Self-determination. Or self-ID to invoke that childishly misunderstood chimera that dwells in the febrile imaginations of transphobic bigots.

Oh how they hate the very concept! But they use it themselves all the time.

How, pray tell, does one prove one is gay? Kissing a member of the same sex? Well then a great many actors must become gay then.

How does one prove one is disabled? My ex-wife has Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a genetic defect of collagen production. It is extremely frequently misdiagnosed. Because it is a near invisible condition.

How does one prove one's religious beliefs? I am a mechanistic nihilist. I can't prove that. When I considered myself a believer I couldn't prove my God's existence.

Each of these, to convey any protection, are predicated solely on self-ID. And rightly so. Self-determination is the foundation of ALL human rights. It's so fundamental, so axiomatic, that it's considered too obvious to list as one of the Articles of the Human Rights Act 1998.

I'm a trans woman. IF anyone ever challenged my entry into a female-only space I would point that out and enter. But I've never once been challenged because it really is that simple. If anyone did bar my access they could expect a lawsuit. And it's an equally plain observation that in the 12 years it's been extant the EA2010 has never been challenged in court in this way. There is no case law in that time because any such case would lack any merit. Even despite the legislation actually allowing for state-sanctioned discrimination. All but the most credulous bigots know this.

Indeed when Ann Sinnott, co-founder of the laughable LGB Alliance petitioned the court for a judicial review her request was dismissed out of hand in recognition of the paucity of its 'merits'.

Now... All the above is offered, generously, by myself to illustrate the futility of your pedantry. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is as near to synonymous with 'trans status' and 'gender identity' as to be a waste of breath that makes you look silly at best.

Then there's the second possibility... That you're more even more stupid. That you spend so much time in transphobic echo chambers that uncritical repetition of meaningless phrases is simply all you have left. In which case, all the above still applies, but you look even more sad and redundant.

I don't care which it is, frankly.

But you won't gaslight others where I can see it. I'll bury you under the profound weight of your fallacies.