MUCH has been written in the past few days about last week’s long-awaited Scottish Parliament debate on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The resignation of Ash Regan from the Scottish Government provided a suitably dramatic hook for reporters who might have been expecting a bit of a rammy in the chamber, or indeed scuffles among demonstrators outside.

Following what proved to be a measured and civilised debate, there was another gift to the media in the form of the SNP’s biggest backbench revolt to date. Amid this flurry of political headlines, it’s perhaps no surprise that any proper discussion of the debate’s substance – rather than its tone – was drowned out.

It doesn’t help that some MSPs seem to be opposing the Gender Recognition Reform Bill for reasons they struggle to articulate. It’s not clear, for example, how Tory MSP Brian Whittle proposes it could be drafted in such a way as to protect women’s sports – or whether he was merely using the debate to float ideas that sporting bodies might adopt.

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: Tories should admit they are hellbent on making poor people suffer

A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking numerous other MSPs were similarly raising concerns that were well beyond the scope of the reforms being discussed – which relate to the process by which a person may obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and consequently change documents including their birth certificate to reflect a change of legal sex.

After all, haven’t we been told that a move to self-ID of legal gender a) affects a tiny number of people, b) is little more than an admin change, and c) will have no impact on the rights of any others?

Yes, we have, and the same lines were trotted out on Thursday by MSPs of all parties. We also heard numerous statements to the effect that the bill would not change any of the protections or definitions that are set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act is reserved legislation, so it’s true that the Scottish Parliament cannot tinker with its wording. But what it can do – indeed, what the Scottish Government is, in effect, seeking to do – is increase the number of people with GRCs.

READ MORE: We're offering a year-long subscription – at the price you can afford

The Equality and Human Rights Commission believes a GRC changes a person’s sex under the Equality Act, meaning those in possession of one would be entitled to be treated as the opposite sex.

Equalities Minister Shona Robison dodged the question of whether the government agrees with this – but the question is central to a live court case against the Scottish Government in relation to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, so it cannot be dodged for much longer.

The SNP’s Fulton McGregor stuck to the party line that “the bill does not give trans people any new rights; nor does it change the Equality Act 2010. It simply makes the process of obtaining a GRC much simpler, less degrading and more humane for trans people.” You’d be forgiven for thinking those opposing it had completely misunderstood.

The Equality Act 2010 recognises that there are some circumstances in which it is legitimate to discriminate on the basis of sex in order to provide single-sex services, where such provision is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, and that exclusion of a person who has undergone gender reassignment (or is in the process, or proposing to begin) is permissible on the same basis.

Two big questions about the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms remain. Firstly, the key question of whether it believes a GRC changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, leaving aside single-sex exemptions.

Secondly, whether the issuing of GRCs to, effectively, anyone who wishes them, might impact on the ability of service providers to exclude people of the opposite sex from a single-sex service, despite their legal right to do so where this is proportionate.

The somewhat glib response that the presentation of a birth certificate is seldom required to access a single-sex space side-steps the question of whether such spaces can, in practice, be legally defended at all.

We have already seen businesses, schools and offices switching to unisex toilet provision following a period of extensive lobbying by those who purport to represent “trans rights”.

Recent alarming cases involving the denial of same-sex medical care to women suggest that the privacy of trans-identifying staff is already being put before the needs of patients, with activist lobbying again running ahead of the law.

Section 22 of the existing Gender Recognition Act – mentioned just once during the debate, by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – criminalises the disclosure of information about a person’s application for a GRC or possession of one if knowledge of this is gained in an official capacity (and in the absence of any exception such as for crime prevention or investigation).

The implications of significantly increasing the number of GRC holders are clear, yet it was barely mentioned in a debate full of parroted mantras and soundbites.

When it comes to stage two of the bill, let’s hope plenty of media attention is given to policy and not just politics.