EHRC consultation - schools technical guidance

I know. Anyone familiar with old school buildings will know of numerous single use toilets dotted round the place. The idea that certain children should be compelled to undress there, raises so many questions about safety, privacy security and of course hygiene.

The problem is that these unhappy children have been told that their rights are the priority and that the school "norms" don't apply to them. The damage that's been done by allowing transactivists to influence the curriculum, SRE / Health Ed & pastoral systems is immense.
The DfE have finally recognised this and started to roll this back but these people are powerful and used to issuing threats and getting what they want. The process of saying no is difficult, especially as we need to support these vulnerable children along the way. They're the victims in all this.

Schools do make reasonable adjustments for children in all sorts of circumstances, so to immediately shut down the option of a third space for a child distressed about their gender as absolutely unworkable would be odd.

What about using those school staff that would have to accompany any 'third option' to actually support the many more children who have physical conditions putting them at serious risk where there are floor to ceiling doors?

Or do those kids not matter? That's the subtext because there simply isn't the money to do everything.

Well said @MrsOvertonsWindow

And there will be a hell of a lot more girls who don't want to do PE during their periods, for actual physical reasons.

The whataboutery is strong.

Sex matters are right. Sex matters for safeguarding, taking a child out of that framework on their say so is dangerous, even if the parents agree.

Frankly telling a child that changing with their sex is a problem, which you do if you immediately give them an alternative is also dangerous and setting them up to fail. Every child would prefer their own personal changing room, plenty for a lot more concrete reasons than confusion about gender. That's not how schools work.

It's a bit much that this suggested 'adjustment' (which won't truly benefit those it's proposed for) is in guidance when schools are riddled with toilets that carry a very high risk of permanent harm or death because of lack of gaps for children with epilepsy and a raft of other medical conditions.

PE staff, the school and parents will use the same strategies and resources that they use for any child who dislikes PE or any other aspect of schooling. Schools make reasonable adjustments for children in all sorts of circumstances and also say no to children where appropriate.

People can be incredibly compassionate but both schools and society cannot pretzel systems and organisations into knots because mentally unwell children have been led to believe that their beliefs are more important than the rest of the school community.

Society can't operate like this and adults are doing a great disservice to these children by telling them otherwise. If they don't develop the confidence and resilience to manage challenges in life then they'll end up socially isolated, out of work and unable to form adult relationships. This isn't rocket science - it's the fundamental basis of education and parenting. These children are being repeatedly failed by too many adults.

School isn't just about doing what you want to do. Or it never used to be, anyway. Lots of kids don't want to do PE, for a range of reasons.

Sex Matters are very clear that everyone should have equal access to sport, but also think that if a pupil is distressed at getting changed in the correct sex changing room, then that's just too bad and they should be told to get on with it.

What is the plan for that pupil if they then start bunking PE as a result? Stop attending school on PE days? What about their access to sport?

Which is how the technical guidance should work if safeguarding children was society's priority. Unfortunately in recent years we've pandered to those invested in producing psycho babble masquerading as science, facts and guidance.

Until people tell the "men are women when they say they are" and "sex change is great for children" people to cease, they will continue to take up endless amounts of our time and energy to the detriment of the safety of everyone.

Thank heavens for Sex Matters and all the other organisations patiently unpicking all this nonsense.

I'm so over pandering to this nonsense that I'm now at the FOTTFSOFATFOSM stage. 😁

I can’t stand all this ‘guidance’ language. When I try and determine what is actionable and who is responsible I want to know what regulations are and what legislation is. That I can work with.

Indeed.
There are so many inconsistencies and incoherence in the tech guidance, preumably the EHRC didn't consult with any education lawyers.

Sex Matters have produced a lengthy analysis of the guidance, pointing out how it actively serves to disadvantage gender questioning children.

"..excluding a child from a facility or from safeguarding procedures for their own sex because they identify as transgender could be unlawful direct discrimination, regardless of motive or parental consent.."

".... the EHRC’s position is that it is a disadvantage to a “trans child” to “out” them at school by revealing their sex to other pupils and staff, and that recognising their sex is “transphobia”. This ignores schools’ overriding obligation to record each child’s sex accurately wherever it is recorded and to communicate clear rules. Treating straightforward recognition of sex as “transphobia” is unworkable and undermines safeguarding, the smooth running of a school and other people’s rights."

They highlight numerous inconsistencies and misunderstanding of KCSIE & education law, let alone education practice.

This technical guidance attempts to undermine KCSIE - whether deliberately or in error. It uses discredited language like "trans child" (not used in KCSIE) and will simply encourage the queer theory organisations who have been all over schools for years trying to enforce their niche beliefs on children below the age of consent.

It's well worth reading as it carefully unpicks so much of the activist speak / demands in the proposed guidance. Transactivists will work very hard to persuade others that the technical guidance is great. In reality it simply encourages the targeting of schools in an attempt scare them into complying with adult trans demands that cause to much harm to all children.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Analysis-of-EHRC-draft-technical-guidance-for-schools.pdf

I mean, we might be able to disagree on the interpretation of the technical guidance re pronouns, but KCSIE is clear that social transition (which would include pronouns) is to be restricted. KCSIE is a legal requirement for safeguarding, the technical guidance is legal advice on interpreting the Equality Act in schools. No headteacher is going to ignore KCSIE's clarity, which they are legally required to have read every year, it is clearly going to be the primary document of reference.

As for why the EHRC have issued this guidance - it's an update which was sorely needed. It wasn't that long ago that the technical guidance referred to transsexual pupils(!) and clearly it needed to be updated post the Supreme Court ruling.

I've included screenshots from the original technical guidance from 2014 - things have come a long way and this latest update clearly is written with KCSIE in mind. However KCSIE has also been written with schools' legal obligations regarding the Equality Act in mind. It's really clear from when Kemi Badenoch was trying to push through her trans guidance for schools that she was hamstrung by the law around the Equality Act from what she actually wanted to do which was ban any sort of social transition/compelled speech in schools.

The question is of whether the technical guidance correctly interprets the law. It clearly didn't in the past. Does it now? Probably?

Saying it's not needed post-KCSIE is incorrect, because the guidance relates to the whole of the Equality Act not just gender reassignment.

And 'compelling their speech' means anything that isn't natural English. Expecting children to avoid normal pronouns is abusive and damaging to their development, in my opinion.

Well obviously two adults who are well read on this subject can disagree on interpretation which I think does beg the question of why EHRC is wasting money on this which won't help anyone in the real world, rather than diverting those resources to the front line to perhaps ensure that children can get the appropriate medical support and adjustments they need on an individual basis.

Since KCSIE what schools don't need is guidance, what they need is money which will allow them to support all the individual pupils in their care in a way which is appropriate to their need and within safeguarding frameworks. Possibly by refurbishing the toilets.

I've got children in schools and if anyone tried to compel their speech to something that is - in my opinion backed up by evidence - anti-safeguarding, I would be bringing legal action against the school. Which would use up more of their limited funds.

The shit about pronouns really doesn't help children who are gender questioning. Unless they're rich enough not to go to a state school, they'll never compel everyone's speech for the whole of their life. To pretend they can do so is cruel.

No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the protected characteristic automatically means that you can force pronouns on teachers and other pupils.

It specifically says where a decision has been taken by the school to permit a pupil to adopt a preferred pronoun, then there would be an expectation to use it or avoid pronouns.

And we know from KCSIE that a school will only decide to permit 'social transition' (which it defines as changes or support put in place to facilitate a pupil presenting as the opposite biological sex) in restricted circumstances. It doesn't relate this restriction to the possession of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but the involvement of parents and professionals.

So yes, pronoun use is social transition, and that section on pronouns only applies to pupils where social transition is agreed.

What is not clear to me is whether allowing gender-questioning children to opt out of using correct sex facilities counts as 'social transition'. If it doesn't, then it wouldn't be subject to the same restrictions. Does allowing a child to use unisex toilets or a separate changing area count as facilitating them to appear as the opposite sex? It wouldn't appear to, so then we could just be looking at this as reasonable adjustments.

Using no pronouns one could argue is also social transition as it's clearly not normal language usage.

I don't see how this could be social transition. But I fully agree it's not normal language usage.

I use exactly this approach with trans-identifying children so that I avoid the whole issue of social transition entirely whilst also not using sex-based pronouns that may cause unnecessary upset and/or a communication barrier.

I also use it for trans-identifying adults but for a different reason: I will not pretend that I believe everyone has a gender identity by using pronouns that differ from people's sex. This reason also applies to children but it's not my primary reason.

Avoiding pronouns entirely, including "they" which would be a social transition in my view, does take effort but it removes the subject of gender identity from the table. This means that support can be given without gender identity needing to be a part of it. For example, an autistic child going through sensory issues with puberty (e.g. breast development, periods, facial hair growth) can talk about how difficult this is without bringing "gender" into play.

If children do open about about what's distressing them about their body, an adult can listen without affirming or pushing back. There could be all sorts of reasons why a child is focused on their body, including issues which relate to gaining back a feeling of control if experiencing trauma or overwhelm, such as with anorexia or following a sexual assault.

I often think about reasonable adjustments in relation to medically vulnerable pupils. Many children have medical conditions that go to mainstream schools. For example it’s estimated around 9 children will have epilepsy in an average secondary school.

I have had really worried parents chat to me about their children attending school with such conditions as epilepsy, diabetes, allergies because there is a constant worry that if they collapse they need to be seen. Most children will end up rushing to the toilet is they feel nauseous which may be a precursor to a bigger medical event.

In the not such distant past the standard design had a 15cm floor-door gap so that was a safeguard. The cubicles were single sex, semi-private, in a washroom private to that particular sex. If a child collapsed, it would be obvious.

Then mixed sex cubicles or single sex cubicles within a mixed sex open washbasin area began fashionable. In these designs, not risk assessed, as far as I can get with FOIs, mean the design is completely private.

School toilet cubicles can still have doors and partitions that finish upto 15cm above floor level. However it is an option. And I have never seen it done for a mixed sex environment (unless a school has just relabelled the single sex designs to mixed sex).

There is also a problem with toilets being refuges for children in mental health crises. We need to be able to know the child is having a mental health crisis quickly.

The Health and Safety Executive have an example of a reasonable adjustment in a toilet for a man with prostate cancer to have a special sanitary bin. I think door gaps are more than a reasonable adjustment.

If anyone is going through this document, please could you make the case for single sex toilets having cubicles that are not fully enclosed to protect children, particularly girls from assaults, and to protect children from harm. This affects medically vulnerable children’s rights to a safe environment. This should have been covered under statutory measures such as https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ce6a72e40f0b620a103bd53/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions.pdf

yet there are many schools that now do not have suitable toilets because of ‘inclusion’ of both sexes in the environment around the cubicle.

Maybe have a read of the thread? There's lots of explanation from those knowledgeable about safeguarding and working in schools who have clarified all the areas where the EHRC technical guidance conflicts with the careful changes that centre children's safety in KCSIE & other DfE guidance.

Edited to add that I've just realised that @womendeserveequalhumanrights has explained it perfectly for you 🙂

KCSIE is safeguarding focused. This 'guidance' is focused only on one PC in the EA 2010 and is in direct conflict with other PCs and safeguarding law (in my opinion). There is absolutely no attempt to consider other PCs, especially age, age appropriateness for safeguarding and the appropriateness for safeguarding of treating children like mini-adults with fixed identities, no matter their age.

There is also no meaningful definition of 'gender reassignment' in the context of schools or children. If schools should not initiate social transition as per KCSIE, then there will be virtually no child with the pc of 'gender reassignment' in schools because they also now can't get physical treatments (due to the lack of medical evidence of benefit), and for any child who could conceivably fall under this umbrella, they'll have a medical team around them. So I'm sure that can be dealt with on a case by case basis as for every child who is under complex medical care with a medical team around them. It's certainly the case that the advice from that medical team about what's best for the wellbeing and mental health of that child in a specific school context (with some knowledge of physical and staffing constraints to accommodations in the school) is going to be better than some vague theoretical 'guidance' by people with no knowledge of real school life.

Then the rest of the children can get on with appropriate sex-based safeguarding and not being used as validation props (emotional abuse) for an adult ideology.

KCSIE says that schools should not initiate social transition, using wrong-sex pronouns IS social transition. Using no pronouns one could argue is also social transition as it's clearly not normal language usage.

KCSIE says that social transition should only happen in extremely rare circumstances with the involvement of medical oversight. This document seems to suggest as soon as any child says 'I feel a bit like the opposite sex' they've got the pc of gender reassignment and that's enough for all these changes which amount to social transition. So there is a huge gulf between what KCSIE is saying and this document.

I'm not sure what you think contradicts KCSIE. Third space changing rooms, having to use preferred pronouns or avoid using them, allowing boys into girls' PE groups, they're all in KCSIE as well, saying the same things.

it's so disappointing to see the EHRC trying to erode the steps the DfE have taken to restore the rights and safety of all children.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I'd like to know why they are doing this. I assume it's activists within the EHRC trying to get around the DfE guidance, or at least trying to introduce confusion and precedent for those school staff who don't understand or don't want to understand the DfE guidance.

But, the DfE guidance is statutory, isn't it?

The change to the regulated activity threshold means that any volunteer working with children on more than 3 days in any 30-day period or overnight , requires an Enhanced DBS check with Children’s Barred List. This could potentially include some of your members who regularly give talks to schools.

I imagine this means that a company like Diversity Role Models will simply ensure that they don't sign up for more than 3 sessions per school per month, which should be fairly easy for them to arrange.

I do appreciate that these new rules are focused on safeguarding, but I hope the safeguarding rules for days 1-3 are stringent enough!

With the SEND and home schooling situations changing the pressure is going to be piled on the system in the next couple of years, not lessened.

"And against this backdrop of no money and not enough staff (and retention and recruitment crises) schools are supposed to magic up the spaces and staff for safe use of third spaces for children who've been gaslit into believing they can change sex. FFS".

Not to mention staff and students having to do the pronoun dance, the PE curriculum / changing rooms etc having to be negotiated, activists and certain parents weighing in with their views and demands. My school once got a letter from a transactivist organisation when we told a girl thinking she was a boy that she couldn't share a dormitory with boys on a field trip.
The staff cancelled the trip rather than compromise safeguarding.

That's the reality of all this and it's so disappointing to see the EHRC trying to erode the steps the DfE have taken to restore the rights and safety of all children.

I've been stewing over this a bit, exacerbated by one of my children's classrooms being evacuated for hours due to a highly dysregulated child whose needs were clearly not being met putting both the child and classmates in an unsafe situation.

This 'guidance' is such a waste of taxpayers money when the schools that are supposed to take heed (which hopefully they won't do - and stick to KCSIE) are struggling.

Practically this is going to be impossible. They don't have enough TAs or teachers to deliver SEND interventions which are (supposedly) legally required via EHCPs, The system is on its knees.

Many families who homeschool now do so TO SAFEGUARD their children because the system in schools is failing to meet needs.

And against this backdrop of no money and not enough staff (and retention and recruitment crises) schools are supposed to magic up the spaces and staff for safe use of third spaces for children who've been gaslit into believing they can change sex. FFS.

I hate the term 'check your privilege' but the people who came up with this bullshit need to go and spend a few weeks in a school before making so many assumptions in their bubble of entitlement.