A clause

Theocracy replaced by genderocracy. You are required to believe in magical spiritual immaterial gender to the exclusion of literal physical sex.

Public bodies will be forced to consider gender identity under a proposed Scottish human rights bill that threatens to undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex.

The draft Human Rights Bill for Scotland, due to be discussed at Holyrood in the coming weeks, contains a clause that would force public bodies to consider “gender identity” when forming policies and delivering services.

Well why stop there? If public bodies have to consider magic gender why don’t they have to consider all the magic ideas people have about themselves? If the law says self-image trumps material reality then all our ideas about ourselves, no matter how grandiose or conceited or absurd, should logically be allowed to trump the humble facts.

Campaigners say this goes far beyond the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in the UK’s Equality Act — and fear it would “legislate for a compulsory belief” that people who believe they are women are women.

Equality laws should have nothing to do with in the head ideas about the self such as magic gender, but that ship has unfortunately sailed.

That would directly contradict the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025, which clarified that the definition of a woman is based on someone’s biological sex, not what gender someone feels they are.

And perpetuate this endless stupid childish game we’ve all been forced to play or be punished for refusing to play.

A FWS spokeswoman said: “Putting gender identity into Scots law is hugely problematic. The Equality Act recognises the right not to believe in the concept of gender identity yet the Scottish government plans to legislate for a compulsory belief in it and for public bodies to take it into account.

That’s the thing. This is a belief. It’s not an external objective fact, it’s a fluffy interior idea, and nobody should be forced to pretend to believe it.

Last year the Scottish government reintroduced the idea of a human rights bill. 

…

In addition, there would be an “equality duty” implemented, which would require public authorities, such as councils and the NHS, to consider how they can deliver the ICESCR rights while designing policies and delivering services.

The proposals, ministers admit, “have evolved to explicitly” include “additional grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ethnic origin and disability”.

Sneaky sneaky sneaky. Those last three are objective external facts. Sexual orientation is the outlier, in being internal and in a sense subjective, but it does have a long well-documented history of persecution, and it doesn’t trespass on other people’s rights. Genner idenniny doesn’t and does.

A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Scottish government accepts the Supreme Court judgment. The proposed human rights bill will not overturn this decision.

“Since April last year we have been taking the necessary steps in response, making changes to policies and guidance impacted by the judgment.”

And yet here we are.