Working Group - KCSIE 2026 changes - improve the guidance via the consultation process, promote more responses & more

Not yet. Am still going through this thread to make notes, on a different tab.

What a pain!

I should imagine I'll hit the same snag 😬

What are you going to do..?

Has anyone actually tried to feedback on the draft yet? I have found they've only allowed 1200 characters for feedback on the whole gender questioning section. I'm currently 2290 characters over 😂

One more thing 😬(sorry)

Mulling over the question of what I would want schools to signpost, it reminded me of when my DD first told us she thought she was a boy and my early interactions with school.

Following a v quick learning curve (less than three weeks from the announcement), I requested a meeting with school to raise the social contagion of girls in DD's year group as a safeguarding issue. I've posted on this upthread and we all know that that meeting did not go well.

I felt let down by school. I felt the leadership team should have been aware of what was going on and to have provided context to parents with a child questioning their gender rather than treat each child as a standalone case. I told school that it was "statistically improbable" that so many girls in the same year group should have a trans identification (10% rather than 1%). It would have been helpful for the school to have applied some critical thinking to what was going on and acted accordingly but they didn't.

It would be good if schools were able to inform parents that the numbers of children identifying as trans are growing and now make up x % approx of the school. That their child is not in fact a unicorn. That there are different schools of thought about the best way to support these children and that the parents may want to do some reading and possibly contact their GP.

I pulled together a list of resources for my DD's Head and DSL, it included NHS and Mermaids (because I was trying to be even handed - I wouldn't do this now) as well as Transgender Trend and Genspect, Our Duty, Bayswater Support Group etc. Wouldn't it be great if DfE could provide schools with a reading list for schools to give to parents to let them know that there are different ways of looking at this?

I realise we are still a long way from this and it seems a shame that this reasonable (to me at any rate) idea would likely be considered ridiculous.

I agree that pronouns and names have a different footing to toilets and changing rooms. I think it would come down to being able to prove discrimination, harassment and victimisation. If a school's policy was not to allow pupils to deviate from their legal name and sex (to meet the legitimate aim of data collection and analysis perhaps) and this was applied across the board it would be interesting to see this picked over by the lawyers.

My point really is that there is an assumption that the PC of GR bestows automatic special treatment - maybe it does in some cases - but my reading of the below para from the Darlington judgment is that it does not. If gender questioning children were treated like everyone else (and the day to day environment does not lean heavily on gender stereotypes) I feel this would be better for the children than treating them like unicorns that need special treatment. Just my opinion but hopefully the par below explains how I formed it?

374. What then of the Equality Act 2010? We considered whether there was any provision in that Act that might render the policy of permitting Rose to access the female changing rooms ‘lawful’. There is nothing in the Act that we could see (or that we were taken to) that confers on a transgender employee the right to use the changing facilities that accords with their declared or affirmed gender. The Equality Act 2010 protects those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, in the same way that it provides such protection to those of other protected characteristics. However, that does not translate into a positive ‘right’ on the part of a trans woman to use the female changing room (or for that matter of a trans man to use the male changing room).

ETA: my bold in the judgment par

I think excluding men from women's changing rooms is a proportionate measure to achieve a legitimate aim though?

I think there have been workplace dismissals for deliberate misgendering which have been upheld because that can come under harassment.

The technical guidance for schools specifically says that there is no protection from harassment for the pc of gender reassignment, only protection from discrimination though, and I have no idea whether that's a school-specific thing or a general application of the Equality Act.

I’m sure all of this will have to be tested in court before this is all over and I can see that in practice pronouns are different from changing rooms but I think the same principle applies. IA very much NAL though!

The two judgments relate to changing rooms / toilets not pronouns but the principle was that people with the pc can’t be treated in a way that’s detrimental in comparison with a person of their own sex without the pc of GR. The PC does not give the right to be treated differently to the comparator. So the judge ruled that Darlington did not have to let Rose use the women’s changing room because they would not allow a man without the pc of GR to do so.

So a boy without the pc of GR would be referred to as “he” when he is not present, difficult to prove there’s a detriment for a boy with the pc of GR to be treated the same.

IME comms from school usually make pragmatic use of “your son/daughter” followed by “their” so pronoun use would likely only be used in internal communication which the child wouldn’t see anyway.

I think the Darlington judgment and that of the latest GLP JR indicate that the PC of GR does not require the school to participate in chosen pronouns

Can you clarify this please, as my understanding is that it would be acceptable to avoid chosen pronouns but there are potential problems with using correct sex pronouns.

I think all parents should read the Cass Review reports and I would hope that would not be controversial. I know it’s long but you need to know what you are signing your kid up for. It’s unbelievable that parents (and teachers) are facilitating the path to medical transition on the basis of slogans and forced teaming with LGBT (which practically is not the same at all).

Agree completely that the advice not to base policies on gender stereotypes is sound. If sex based groupings only happened where it delivers a proportional aim then all children can wear what they like and do what they like within the constraints of school life so no need to be fixated on changing yourself.

I think the Darlington judgment and that of the latest GLP JR indicate that the PC of GR does not require the school to participate in chosen pronouns, only not to create a detriment in comparison with another child of the same sex.

Incidentally, the stuff about not informing parents where there is potentially a safeguarding risk is descended from not informing parents if a child comes out as lesbian or gay, where this could cause a family breakdown due to extreme homophobia. It's from teaming the LGB with the T rather than treating them as two extremely different issues.

What resources would you signpost parents to? Accessible, non-technical resources that unlike e.g. the NSPCC don't say 'ask your child their new name and pronouns' as soon as they mention being trans.

I think there has to be an allowance for schools to change names and pronouns because of the included caveat that children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This is a massive ballache. Good spot about non-binary. I don't think non-binary counts towards the protected characteristic so could be a straightforward 'no', although that might then push gender-questioning children towards the opposite sex which I feel is more dangerous.

it is fixated on "social transition" as opposed to working with children and their parents to help them feel comfortable at school.

It does say that schools should work to adopt flexible policies that don't reinforce gender stereotypes with rigid rules. Maybe that includes allowing boys to do dance in PE (not a safety issue), for example. Or not having school uniform options labelled by sex.

I think the biggest loophole in the whole thing is that none of it is in Part 1, so teachers don't have to read any of it. It can all be filtered through school training (or not).

In reality, autistic children are significantly impacted by internalising the idea that their autism-related puberty distress (e.g. sensory issues with breast or beard development) and general discomfort with their changing body and emotions might in fact mean they are in the wrong body.

I'm sure that interoception issues play a part here too. Kids who can't recognise when they are hungry or hot and the impact it has on them.
Puberty comes along and they are feeling really strong hormonal emotions, and weird body sensations which makes them struggle but they don't know why because they are bad at identifying and labelling both bodily sensations and emotions. Then they, who don't understand these things, are fed the message that this is a sign that they are in the wrong body and if they change what they wear, call themselves and eventually their body, they will feel happier.

It's not just telling vulnerable kids the problem, it's telling them the solution. I read that if you ask why they thought changing their name/pronouns/clothes would make them feel happier the answer can be 'I don't know'.

Off-topic though.

I am currently re-reading the thread and making notes ready for my response.

The new proposed wording has removed any mention of autism being a possible underlying factor for why a child might be gender questioning. I wonder if the autism lobby groups put pressure on the DfE to remove this? IME these groups are heavily pushing the narrative that autistic people can "be trans" and that suggesting otherwise is both albeist and transphobic. In reality, autistic children are significantly impacted by internalising the idea that their autism-related puberty distress (e.g. sensory issues with breast or beard development) and general discomfort with their changing body and emotions might in fact mean they are in the wrong body. This is compounded by cognitive processing needs around language e.g. understanding the difference between "being" a male or female in relation to biology versus stereotypes.

The current guidance says the following (see screenshot). The new proposed guidance doesn't mention autism at all in this context. This clarity needs to be included in the new guidance.

Edited to add: this is related to a discussion about paragraphs 244-249 in the proposed guidance, from earlier in the thread.

Thank you so much @Cantunseeit .
So many excellent points.

One point I'll be adding in here is the role of schools socially transitioning children "glueing" children in to a false identity. I recall the early guidelines from the paedophile adjacent Mermaids that primary schools should have an assembly for children claiming to be the opposite sex and celebrate the change with the whole school. Even then I knew that this ensured that a young child would never be able to change their mind.

I was researching to help a school deal with a child and I realised then that these issues were psychologically damaging, child unfriendly and age inappropriate. And led by people seeking to use children for their own ends.

We can still see some of that transactivist influence in these current guidelines and it's important that they're challenged in the ways you've suggested and replaced with child and education centred advice.

Some free form overarching thoughts:

• I think it needs an opening paragraph to provide a summary of the latest thinking / evidence that childhood transition is really not a good idea for the well-being of the child
• I think it should include some kind of obligation to signpost resources to parents who have been indoctrinated
• nowhere does it really say what social transition entails - from what is not allowed there is not much left other than names and pronouns but there isn't a paragraph on changing these (unless I missed it). If there was I would feedback that schools shouldn't be changing pronouns ever and likely not names either
• I've made lots of changes to suggest that schools only follow clinical advice but obviously this is v unlikely to happen (not least as the waiting lists are still so long it is not practicable) but if you were a DSL I'm not sure there's enough here on what you should do to support such a request (other than make damn sure the parents are involved)
• it doesn't tackle kids asking to change their name (i.e. not saying the full script, "I am questioning my gender and want to socially transition") and what schools should do about this - does this trigger informing parents for example?
• it doesn't include the wording from the last draft guidance that gender ideology is a contested idea (and highly political - although not sure that the last one said that either)
• it is fixated on "social transition" as opposed to working with children and their parents to help them feel comfortable at school. That could be all sorts of things
• I didn't notice it mentioning non-binary I don't think - not sure if that's good or bad
• Overall, it could be worse but it still has loopholes you could drive a truck through in relation to safeguarding gender questioning children

Support for children who wish to detransition
275. There may be circumstances where a child wants to fully or partially reverse a request that has previously been agreed. The Cass Review highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility and keeping options open for children who have socially transitioned and recommended that support should be provided to children who wish to de-transition. Schools and colleges should work closely with parents and relevant experts to ensure that children in this position are supported.

Thoughts: technically it would be wanting to desist rather than detransition as the term detransition is typically associated with medical transition.

What the heck are “relevant experts” in this context? I don’t like the sound of that at all

Given the evidence of high rates of desistence without social transition and the German study of insurance codes which suggested a detransition / desistence rate of 70%, I’d like to see this phrased more strongly. Something like:

“It is common for children questioning their gender to resolve their issues with their birth sex and want to reverse all or some aspects of their social transition. These children often do not want to make a big fuss or even acknowledge they are effectively changing their minds. The Cass Review highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility and keeping options open and schools and colleges should work closely with parents and the child’s clinicians to ensure that children are supported and not trapped in their social transition.”

Children living in stealth
274. Schools and colleges should be particularly conscious of the vulnerabilities of children who have fully socially transitioned from an early age and may be living in stealth (that is, school or college friends/staff may be unaware of their biological sex). The Cass Review emphasised that these children are likely to approach puberty in a fearful and anxious state. Schools and colleges should involve the DSL in these cases.

Thoughts: The additional safeguarding risks of “living in stealth” would be better set out as part of para 258 above (and expanded to cover all the points raised by the Cass Review). The concept should be challenged as it is not possible to follow para 273 if children are truly stealth i.e. staff do not know the sex of the child. Keeping other children in ignorance of the sex of the child also poses safeguarding risks to other pupils.

What on earth does “fully socially transitioned” mean here?

Correct information
273. Having the correct information about a child is important in the context of schools and colleges fulfilling their safeguarding duties, and they should make sure all relevant staff are aware of a child’s biological sex in all cases. Schools and colleges are legally required to record a child’s biological sex accurately wherever it is recorded.

Thoughts: Yes! And this paragraph contradicts the fluff in para 258 about “living in stealth” elsewhere which says staff may not know the sex of the children they are teaching.

272. We expect that as well as revisiting decisions at appropriate points, schools and colleges will in particular want to consider whether previous decisions taken prior to this guidance coming into force remain appropriate, taking into account the impact of making any changes on the child in question and considering the principle above about involving parents.

Thoughts: Pussyfooting around again I’d say. I think this is trying to say that schools who have socially transitioned children already with or without informing parents must review their decision based on this new statutory process including involving parents.

This could be much clearer and directive rather making it a nice idea to think about maybe considering …

Can you tell I’m near the end and losing the will to live a little here?

Good point - it's also encouraging schools to put the responsibility on children to deal with policy / implications rather than being an adult professional responsibility. No doubt added as they recognise this is an impossible circle to square so let's let the kids decide.

271. The circumstances of a case and/or the needs of a child may change over time. For example, it may become known that there are safeguarding issues that were not previously apparent (including where a young child is ‘living in stealth’ - see below), or that a decision has placed an unsustainable pressure on a school or college's resources. In such cases, the school or college may need to review their original decision taking into account the factors set out above, including involving the child's parents. In deciding whether to review a decision, the school or college should involve their DSL immediately.

Thoughts: this is a bizarre paragraph. I’m not sure what point it is trying to make, paraphrasing to see if I’ve got it?

1. The needs of a child may change over time so keep reviewing the needs in partnership with parents/carers and responding to clinical advice.
2. If the school feels it can no longer support the social transition this decision should involve DSL and the child’s parents/carers.

If this is the case, it should say so. If I have misunderstood, it needs clarifying!

Your version is great but I think it needs to go even further. Apologies if my formatting is a bit confusing. I've deleted words that I'm suggesting need removal (including where I agree with your proposed removal) and have included suggested additions in italics:

Notwithstanding paragraph 250 (bullying is never tolerated), the school or college must be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief (or lack of belief) and must not compel or ceorce the use of opposite sex (or non-binary) pronouns. Schools and colleges supporting social transition must allow other pupils and staff who do not hold a belief in gender identity to consider options such as using names instead of pronouns. All pupils’ and staff’s beliefs (and lack of belief) should be respected, whereby they should never feel pressurised or compelled to speak in a way that does not reflect their own values.

Edited to add: I used the word "must" instead of "might" to cover the fact that non-believers need alternatives. Schools are legally obligated to follow the Nolan Principles, so "must" fits much better here than their woolly wording IMO.

Again this undermines many school safeguarding, pastoral care and confidentiality policies. Transactivists are very keen on individual adults deciding to keep a child's confidences - "our secret".
Many schools do not encourage the keeping of such confidences but tell teachers that they need share these with the relevant DSL / pastoral lead. The principle of "not working alone" is baked into safeguarding practice .Individual teachers are unlikely to have an overview of a child's history in the way that a DSL or safeguarding lead will have . So what on the face of it may seem passing teenage angst could, if you know the background, be a safeguarding issue.

Again it's transactivism rather than balanced educational practice where adults are advised to be alert to concerns and to share these with relevant staff.

Edited to add - It's encouraging professional dangerousness by encouraging secret keeping. It also puts a massive responsibility on often young inexperienced staff to assess individual levels of risk in relation to exceptionally complex mental health related issues - again something that you shouldn't do alone.

270. The school or college should also make sure that children and their families are aware that while the school or college will appropriately sanction any cases of bullying or harassment, and take a strong stand against bullying, the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief. However, schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns.

Thoughts: This seems super unclear. It is pussyfooting around instead of being clear that other pupils and staff have rights under the Equality Act in relation to religion or belief and may not be prepared to use opposite sex pronouns for a child undertaking social transition (and shouldn't be made to do so).

Suggested version

Notwithstanding paragraph 250 (bullying is never tolerated), the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief and must not compel the use of opposite sex pronouns. However, Schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns. However, pupils’ and staff’s beliefs should be respected and they should never feel pressurised or compelled to speak in a way that does not reflect their values.

It's like whack-a-mole isn't it?! I've suggested some additional words in italics here too.

There's a whole thread on the sports bit of the KCSIE guidance. I'll grab a link to it when I get chance. It contains a whole load of filibustering about how great mixed-sex sports can be (FFS) but also has some useful info.

269. When discussing requests with children and their parents/carers, schools and colleges should take time to sensitively explain that supporting any degree of social transition will not include allowing access to toilets, changing rooms or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, and will not include allowing children to join PE classes designated for the opposite sex where there are safety reasons (or any other legitimate aim) for single-sex PE.