I REMEMBER what Caroline said to me. She said there was still an opportunity to stop sex offenders abusing the gender reform bill and yet the SNP was refusing to take it.

I also remember what Shereen said. She said she’d tried to organise a screening of a film about women’s rights and the trans issue but it was called off because of a protest by trans activists. I checked with her the other day and she’s still trying to get a new date for the showing.

And I remember what Joanna Cherry said. “I am not a transphobe. I am not a bigot. I’m a human rights lawyer who knows that sometimes rights conflict and we have to have a civilised discussion about how we rub along.”

But it’s complicated, because on the same day I spoke to the protesters at Holyrood, I noticed a young person sitting on a wall at the back. Twenty years old. Obviously struggling with their gender. We spoke for a while and I hope the encounter, and others like it, have helped me to see what’s supposed to be happening here. The bill was meant to be a compassionate response to trans people. Politically, it was also meant to be a legacy piece of legislation for Nicola Sturgeon. These are fair enough aims.

Mark Smith: What Glasgow can learn from Aberdeen

But look at it now. First, the UK Government blocked the law after it was passed by Holyrood. Second, the First Minister announced a prisoner convicted of raping two women before changing gender would not be allowed to serve time at a women’s prison. And third, Ms Sturgeon was urged to block the transfer of another violent prisoner – Tiffany Scott, previously Andrew Burns – who’s also applied to move to a women’s jail.

The rational response to all of this, I would say, is to look again at the law and its consequences based on the principle that when the facts change, you should change your opinion. Hopefully, I can include myself in this. I used to be a pretty hard-core supporter of the gender reform bill, but speaking to women like Caroline and Shereen – and trans people as well it must be said – it’s obvious there are problems around certain aspects of the law and compromises need to be found to make it work.

And yet, the First Minister doesn’t appear willing to budge and has just given an extraordinary interview in which she appears to be doubling down. Speaking on the News Agents podcast, she said some opponents of her bill were using women’s rights as a cloak of acceptability for transphobia.

“There are people who have opposed this bill that cloak themselves in women’s rights to make it acceptable,” she said, “but just as they’re transphobic you’ll find that they’re deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.”

My answer to that remark would be “where’s your evidence First Minister?” and I’d say the same about another claim she made in the interview which was that she’s no longer certain the Tories wouldn’t try to abolish Holyrood. She said she still didn’t think it was “likely”, but that she was no longer 100% sure. She also said there was a concerted effort to undermine, delegitimise and remove powers from the parliament.

Mark Smith: Revealed – the Scottish Government’s secretive review of shooting

You may believe what the First Minister says here, who knows, and undoubtedly, transphobia is real: just look at Twitter for more than a few seconds. I’ve also got no doubts that in a society that’s still largely based on some pretty antediluvian ideas of masculinity, people who question those ideas can have a miserable time.

But even though transphobia is a real concern, I think there are signs of trouble in what Ms Sturgeon says, political and personal. I’ve now spoken to many women who oppose the reforms, one of whom worked with the First Minister, and without exception they’ve had a thoughtful and rational approach to the law.

I also think I was too ready to dismiss their arguments in the early days, probably because I thought I could see a lack of compassion for people struggling with their identity. I too might once have said some of the critics were hiding behind a cloak of respectability.

Ms Sturgeon could have said something similar about having second thoughts – and perhaps the government review announced at the weekend is a sign she has. She could have acknowledged that most of her critics are actually reasonable and rational rather than transphobic. She could also have said that she’s willing to go back and look at the legislation again, work with the UK Government, and come up with something better. This would have been the reasonable and, dare I say it, rational response.

Instead, she has chosen to lay into the critics in a pretty lurid way. Some of those who oppose her law, she says, are apparently deeply misogynist, often homophobic, and possibly racist. But has she spoken to them? Has she invited some of the critics to talk to her face to face, and if not why not?

An indication of trouble ahead for any politician, particularly one who’s been in power for a long time, is when they stop communicating with people who hold different opinions, and another is when they dismiss them in the way Ms Sturgeon has done. This is the first sign of trouble.

The second concerns her extraordinary remarks about Holyrood and the possibility of it being abolished by the Conservatives. No one, except perhaps in the smelliest corners of the internet, thinks there is even a remote possibility of the Scottish Parliament being scrapped by the Tories and the fact that Ms Sturgeon says it is possible is troubling.

The best politicians – and Keir Starmer has this – always keep a connection to nuance, which exists in the real world, and avoid hyperbole, which exists in fantasy stories. Sadly, Ms Sturgeon has given in to hyperbole and it’s worrying.

Mark Smith: God save Scotland – an idea for the new national anthem

None of this means I think the First Minister will necessarily be politically punished for her attitudes – the SNP will still do very well at the next election I’m afraid – but what behaviour like this does do is it damages momentum. The hardcore – you know who you are – will vote SNP come what may, and every party has supporters like that.

But the problem for the SNP is voters in the reasonable middle. Voters the party needs to attract. Voters who will take a look at Ms Sturgeon’s remarks, and read about Tiffany Scott, previously known as Andrew Burns, and end up being less likely to support the First Minister and vote SNP. It’s a trend that may already be happening and it’s the third sign of trouble in what Ms Sturgeon had to say this week. For a successful politician like her, it is also surely the most serious.