IN the unlikely event I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I would vote against the Gender Recognition Act on Wednesday. On moral and political grounds, I would deeply object to any Whip trying to direct me otherwise.

If ever there was a proposition on which MSPs are entitled to a free vote, this is it. Every party should allow its members to vote according to conscience. This should not be a vote defined by party lines.

It is a debate most males have tended to keep out of, not least because there are plenty articulate and better-informed women to make the same case. However, a majority of MSPs are men and Wednesday’s vote will be gender neutral. So each is obliged to formulate a view, rather than do what he is told.

MSPs will not be able to say they weren’t warned, both by words and actual events. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Reem Alsalem, told them the Bill “presents potential risks to the safety of women” and could “open the door for violent males who self-identify as women to abuse the process”. At its most basic, why would anyone vote for that?

Brian Wilson: We need a root and branch review of how the SNP spends our money

As for events, there are cases which bear out Ms Alsalem’s concerns with chilling accuracy. Notably and recently, Katie Dolatowski, a recidivist sex offender who operated in Kirkcaldy before moving to Leeds under an assumed name, assaulted another inmate and is now in Cornton Vale although a biological male. An extreme example, say the Bill’s proponents dismissively.

How many extremes will be required before a problem is admitted to? In what other field or Parliament would legislators wilfully introduce a measure which “presents potential risks to the safety of women” or “opens the door to violent males”?

The more general right of women to safe spaces which biological males do not enter seems to me pretty sacrosanct. Common sense, even. Allowing individuals with male characteristics to enter them on the basis of self-certification seems to encourage unnecessary risk. Again, this is surely common sense rather than some great philosophical hypothesis. Why are Scotland’s Parliamentarians so determined to defy common sense and increase that risk?

Then up pops another UN Special Rapporteur, Victor Madrigal-Bordoz, to express “worries that stigma and prejudice against trans women could be behind efforts to postpone consideration of the Bill”. The straightforward answer is: “No it isn’t. There are perfectly good arguments against the Bill which have absolutely nothing to do with stigma and prejudice”.

Brian Wilson: Scottish democracy cannot be defined as a dictatorship by the minority

They involve a balance of rights and risks. In my view, the rights of women en masse should prevail. This does not make me “phobic” or stigmatic towards any group. To suggest otherwise is to disrespect the deeply held concerns on the other side of the argument, rather address them.

Far from being “phobic” towards trans people, whose rights should indeed be respected, an obvious objection to the legislation is that a small but dangerous number of predatory men will take advantage of ludicrously lax self-definition in order to present themselves as something they are not. Is there any surer way of “stigmatising” genuinely trans people than that?

When she spoke at the Zero Tolerance event recently, Nicola Sturgeon obligingly displayed the intellectual confusion of her own argument when she said “most men who commit violence against women don’t feel the need to change gender to do that”. Absolutely true – but the corollary is that some do (or pretend to). What conceivable rationale is there for making it easier, in the name of Zero Tolerance?

No wonder she was heckled by a woman who has been fighting for decades to secure women’s rights in spite of the organisers sending a plea that Ms Sturgeon should be protected from “discussions of the definition of a woman and single sex spaces in relation to the Gender Recognition Act.”. In other words, don’t mention the war – even if you are a woman who has spent decades in the trenches fighting it.

Where does the demand for this uniquely Scottish legislation come from, apart from the insatiable desire to be “world leaders” in something, no matter how dubious? In other contexts, we hear a lot about opinion polls which, when a particular purpose is served, are held up as sure-fire indicators of public mood.

Not in this case, it seems. Here we are not talking about 51-49 one way which next month might be 51-49 the other way. Scottish opinion polling on the Gender Recognition Bill shows overwhelming opposition to what is being proposed; on all measures by a margin of three to one.

On “reducing the minimum age a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16”, there is 66 per cent opposition and 21 per cent support. Opposition includes 63 per cent of SNP voters. Either Scotland is the most “phobic” or “stigmatic” nation in the world or else the vast majority simply think this legislation should be ditched.

Brian Wilson: Now is the time for a root and branch review of our health service

As for the Scottish public’s priorities, while the constitution sometimes makes it into the top five, a Gender Recognition Act would be lucky to get into the top 50. So why is it the SNP’s only other “big idea”?

Westminster is capable of recognising an ethical rather than purely political issue when it sees one. Abortion, the death penalty, human embryology, even hunting with dogs were all subject to free votes. Why does Holyrood choose to operate to a lesser standard in terms of respecting individual ethics and beliefs?

The Tory call for an open-ended debate on Wednesday is absolutely right. The cynicism of holding this vote four days before Christmas and curtailing it in time for everyone to go home for their tea is all too typical of how Holyrood operates.

For once, MSPs should be made to sit it out and sweat it out before nodding through a piece of legislation for which each of them who supports it will, whether they like it or not, have a very personal ongoing responsibility.