Medical protocols including RLE are not based on sound research into whether that improves outcomes. They are based on the prejudices and gut feelings of occasionally well-meaning doctors. Given that, arguments that we owe it to anyone to work within that system are not convincing. The system is, quite simply, not designed to serve our needs so much as to minimize the number of people who transition.
IMO, the only requirements for either HRT or SRS ought to be 1) persistent dysphoria/desire to transition genders, and 2) the absence of otherwise treatable causes for that dysphoria/desire. Demonstrating and documenting these does not require RLE.
RLE might be helpful for some people, but the reality is that it is not a safe option for many, many people. Requiring it endangers many people, discourages many others who would be helped by medical transition but are unwilling to risk unaided RLE, and has not been demonstrated to help anyone(*).
It is also a biased and sexist process, as it is not at all difficult to find modern examples of therapists who enforce their ideas of femininity in order to "count" the RLE. Didn't show up in a dress and heels for the appointment? Reset the RLE clock... Since there is no legitimate defintion of what it means to live as female or male, it's not even a well defined requirement.
RLE may be a good idea for some, but as a requirement to diagnose or obtain medically necessary treatments, it is inappropriate nonsense.
(*) Careful here: it probably has helped some people, in the sense that people have decided through RLE not to transition and reached a better outcome. That doesn't mean it's effective. Randomly picking 10% of those seeking HRT or SRS and refusing them treatment would also occasionally prevent someone from undergoing a treatment they would be better off without. It needs to be shown that RLE selectively weeds out cases where the treatment is inappropriate.
