NSPCC’s ‘confused’ gender guidance puts children at risk

[IwantToRetire]

The NSPCC’s gender guidance is “confused” and potentially putting children at risk by encouraging them to use opposite-sex changing rooms, a charity has warned.

The child protection organisation’s unit for keeping children safe in sport “actively encourages” organisations to put children in harm’s way, the campaign group Sex Matters has claimed.

The group has written the Department for Education (DfE) urging them to force the NSPCC to alter its stance

It follows several scandals over the NSPCC’s approach to trans ideology over recent years.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/14/nspcc-gender-guidance-putting-children-at-risk-says-charity

Full article at https://archive.is/NSLGp

Good that the Telegraph has picked up on this and amplified the work of Sex Matters.

Thank you, Maya.

A spokesman for the NSPCC said: “The NSPCC is committed to protecting and supporting all children, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“These are protected characteristics under the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/NSLGp/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/08/labour-wont-close-biological-sex-loophole-in-equality-act/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Equality Actt and all our policies, advice and guidance are in line with the protections afforded by law, in addition to the guidance issued by the NHS.”^

No, gender identity is not a protected characteristic and therefore the NSPCC's advice is not in line with the law.

Sport and activity providers should consider how to support these young people to feel comfortable using the correct changing room for their sex.

No, gender identity is not a protected characteristic and therefore the NSPCC's advice is not in line with the law.

Operation "Let Them Speak" never fails.

Great to see this being called out.

Although this is a brilliant article (and "gender critical beliefs" are winning tribunals), I would like to see a change in the way the press reports this part, particularly in relation to schools:

Sex Matters is led by Maya Forstater whose legal battle with her former employer established the principle that gender critical beliefs are protected in law.

Maya Forstater also won the protected to not believe that everyone has a gender identity:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=zQyN8I8PqV1Ygf1jrX-IA&s=19

Screenshot below for anyone not on X.

The statutory teaching standards guidance states that schools need to ensure that "personal beliefs [of staff] are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils' vulnerability".

The statutory KCSIE guidance that went live on 1st September this year explains that vulnerability in paragraphs 205-209 and links to the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance and Cass, both of which explain it further.

Also all civil servants are bound by the Nolan principles, which again prohibit the promotion of personal beliefs.

So lack of belief is the more important win from the Forstater case IMO when bodies like the NSPCC (or its sports subsidiary) put out advice about where children should get changed etc. On many occasions, these children will be in school environments or council-led sports facilities.

Also, some people may find it preferable to refer to a "lack of belief in gender identity" when pushing back on this, rather than relying on their "belief" that sex is real and immutable. I certainly do.

Although it's still only in draft, the Gender Questioning Children guidance has a definition of "gender identity" which is useful too:

Gender identity: is a contested belief. It is a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or another category such as non-binary. This may or may not be the same as their biological sex. Many people do not consider that they or others have a gender identity at all.

To add, the fact that Sex Matters has written to the DfE asking them to put pressure on the NSPCC suggests that the school angle is important here.

I’m worrying about this. The NSPCC is doing egat looks like a takeover of our primary school this term with multiple assemblies and workshops. No hint of the usual nonsense has ever appeared at school as far as I know but we have a relatively new Head and I’m thoughtful. Any advice? Can I ask to see the materials or topics beforehand?

Is the letter from Sex Matters to DfE available?

I've just had a quick look at their X feed and all they've got on this is a repost of the article. So I'm assuming no, but it would be great to see it.
Are you in X? If not, I'd be happy to ask them as a reply to their post (although I'm a small account, so they may not see it):

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1835067204607336531?t=wKG-f93jaH7lcktRr3pFwA&s=19

Thanks Bonfire. I wonder if they'll post it later on. Mostly thought it would be good to see it, to see on what grounds they're challenging it. Might not be in the letter but the article goes into belief. And we keep having this about belief don't we? Sex is sex and as it can't be changed, the GRA needs repealed. So how are they taking this fight to the DfE and the NSPCC and what are we supposed to be thinking about it?

Yep, maybe we wait and see if they release it later. They normally do share this kind of thing TBF.

Yes, belief is central to gaining ground on this. Legalisation should never be based on a belief that not everyone holds because it ends up pushing the believers' principles on to the non-believers' as rights in law.

If we focus on "gender critical belief", it backs us in to corner because we're arguing for our "belief" that sex is immutable to be upheld. TRAs constantly tell us that we're wrong.

While we still have the protected characteristic of sex in the EA, I think we should focus on lack of belief (that everyone has a gender identity) as the key driver for change. There are single sex exemptions in law. If TRAs want gender identity to be more important than sex, they need to fight for change. IMO we should be saying no based on lack of belief.

I appreciate we have the GRA, which does effectively ratify gender identity belief in law, but we're in nowhere near as bad a position as somewhere like Australia, where sex seems to have been completely replaced by gender identity.

It's more that the GRA will be argued as fine for a male to watch underage females in this scenario. Or that as it does, well hey let's make it all mixed sex. So how are they arguing it? I'd have thought they'd publish the letter as they do seem to. Maybe there's just a delay.

I always think of it in comparison to other beliefs. For example, what if schools started teaching that sperm wasn't always needed for human reproduction and that just an egg would suffice.... because Christians insisted that the immaculate conception meant it was hateful to deny this.

GRCs are pieces of paper which effectively say "I believe I'm the opposite sex, so you have to believe it too"... except on some occasions, laid out in single sex exemptions when you don't.... but guess what, I've also got legal ID that says you have to believe it.

If any other groups of "established belief" insisted on this approach, the answer would be no. Freedom of belief does not entitle anyone to push their belief values on to anyone else in law... Gender identity belief should be no exception.

Seeing these changes following a change in school head is definitely pause for thought.

Yes, you can definitely ask to see it. Maybe something like a simple "I'm really interested to understand more about the NSPCC involvement with the school. Please can I see all the materials that the children are learning from" email and you'll get sent it.

However, if that's a no (e.g. they try and fob you off with the copyright excuse that they can't share the materials), it's a tough topic to open up. Having done it myself... and still being in the thick of it, my generic advice would be:

1. figure out what's important to you. My goal is to protect my daughter from harm by removing the bias that is pulling her towards it (as much as I can)
2. stick to your own values. I genuinely do accept that some people believe we all have a gender identity and I genuinely do feel sad for anyone who feels distress that theirs doesn't match their sex. However, I'm fully aware that my feelings would be exploited if I hadn't informed myself about what's really going on. In other words, I can keep my liberal values but I need to be clear where the line is
3. understand what risks you're comfortable taking by speaking out (there is always risk, it's impossible to fully avoid it) and where you're comfortable that you've met your goal in a way that's "good enough"
4. take the above and think about how you want to engage and who you want to engage with. It will inform your whole engagement style: how often, the content, when to stop

Maybe your values are very different e.g. you prefer being more direct.

My route is much slower to get results, and it doesn't mitigate the difficult conversations, but I'm getting there. I'm at a tough point now where my personal risk level is higher than before, but I can also see that the risk to my daughter is being mitigated. A faster more direct route will get to a result more quickly. Obviously in both cases the result may obviously not match your goal 😬

Hopefully that's helpful and not patronising. Apologies if it was.

That’s insightful and very helpful @BonfireLady thank you so much. It’s a very small school and all the parents the topic has ever come up with have no truck with it at all and are sensible rather than #bekind, some are pretty angry. But that’s been in terms of news stories etc not so close to home.

I’ll ask what’s being covered, particularly in the lower years and go from there. The chair of governors is a sensible head on strong shoulders with a young child there too. I may be worrying about nothing but I was stressed about it before she even started reception and have felt reassured by the changing tides only to find myself groaning at the programme of special days and numerous assemblies by an organisation I don’t trust one bit.

Would you mind if I come back to you if I need to?

The NSPCC guidance eg about changing rooms, trying to persuade girls to get undressed in front of boys, and coerce children into pretending males are female if they say so, is deeply worrying. The NSPCC train social workers and safeguarding staff. Lying to children and removing privacy from girls undermines safeguarding and leads to abuse, and leads to a hostile environment for victims.

The coercion by NSPCC to make girls undress in front of boys and undermine boundaries is reminiscent of:
1- the coercion from some fathers who say they are women to their daughters
eg submission to government childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/02/27/gra-inquiry-submission/

2- the evidence of the little girl victim of Amy/Andrew Miller. She got into his car because she thought he would be safe like women as she had been taught TWAW and he was wearing 'women's' clothing. https://reduxx.info/scotland-crossdressing-butcher-sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison-for-abduction-sexual-assault-of-local-child/

It's also worth reminding any readers who didn't know, that when the 'men chestfeeding ' babies sexual fetish scandal first hit the press, with babies being used as props to satisfy men's sexual paraphilias and fantasies eg lactation fetish- the NSPCC spoke up- in favour of the men. Not of safeguarding infants from unauthorised medical experimentation, unnecessary drugs that harm them, and sexual abuse. If the offender is trans, NSPCC ignore all basic child safeguarding .

I have PMd you @AnneLovesGilbert

The NSPCC’s gender guidance is “confused” and potentially putting children at risk by encouraging them to use opposite-sex changing rooms, a charity has warned.

And the charity is "Sex Matters" Maya Forstarter's charity?

Very pleased to see the intervention from Sex Matters.

Voyeurism and indecent exposure are criminal offences. A 12 year girl in the school swimming team could be subject to both these crimes if a 16 year old boy claiming to be a girl is allowed into undress alongside her. That the NSPCC, a charity with a statutory role in safeguarding children, is openly promoting opportunities for these crimes to happen is criminal.
These are the beliefs of predators - that girls are compelled to expose their bodies to random males. The NSPCC is meant to safeguard children - not advocate for criminal acts to be carried out against them.

It's a totally incoherent mess up of their own teaching

"Children, you are in charge of your own bodies, who you show them to, say no kids! Never let someone make you feel uncomfortable! Unless they're a boy who wants to be a girl instead, and then how you feel is irrelevant because if you don't take your clothes off in front of him you will make him sad."

Basically: girls, your consent and decisions about your body must be predicated on the feelings of the male in front of you.

Asking to see the RE policy may also help: there is likely to be something in there about no one belief system being promoted as the 'right' one or as fact, and no one being held more important than another. Faced with an HT whose personal faith has blinded them to their duty of tolerance and objectivity re belief, I would be forced to explain to them that I will have to now teach my child that they are going to be lied to at school by trusted adults, that this is wrong but they mustn't say so because they'll be in trouble, and fill in the actual truth for my child myself. It is not going to do a lot for my child's relationship with the staff or with education, but the HT has chosen to make it necessary.

I've always wondered what self reflection the NSPCC did after they initially defended their employee who filmed himself masturbating in rubber fetish gear in the workplace and posted it online? If I recall correctly, they initially called people calling this out "homophobes and bigots" before finally sacking him.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3714849-Sacked-by-the-NSPCC-on-12th-August

Excellent points @MrsOvertonsWindow and @Anastomosisrex

Looping back to parents who are thinking about (or are already engaged in, conversations with their school) I particularly like this great suggestion:

Asking to see the RE policy may also help: there is likely to be something in there about no one belief system being promoted as the 'right' one or as fact, and no one being held more important than another

Ps hopefully the school thing isn't a derail on my part. For me, the key link is that Sex Matters is writing to the DfE, as per my first comment above.

Add to this the statutory requirement for schools to be politically impartial. (Education Act 1996, Section 406 & 407).

Promoting mixed sex showers, changing rooms and dormitories for children is a political ideology that undermines the social contract and potentially advocates criminal acts (voyeurism and indecent exposure). All promoted by the political movement of trans ideology that seeks to remove legal sex based rights.

No place for this in schools and the NSPCC of all organisations should know this.

The spokesman for the NSPCC needs better legal advice. Gender reassignment (not gender identity) is not a protected characteristic in children, because only an adult can change legal sex. (Okay, it's arguable, but they have just recited it without thinking.)

PP have made good points about safeguarding and freedom of belief, but I also think that things like the Cass Review will help, by shifting the perception of 'sex change' to something that only adults do (like it used to be!).

The spokesman for the NSPCC needs better legal advice. Gender reassignment (not gender identity) is not a protected characteristic in children, because only an adult can change legal sex. (Okay, it's arguable, but they have just recited it without thinking.)

Victoria Prentis confirmed that the PC of gender reassignment does apply to children but when you look at it in context, the same point still applies about the legality of letting boys or girls choose which changing room they use.

The EHRC has clarified that a boy/man who identifies as a girl/woman should be treated no less favourably than a boy/man who doesn't. And obviously vice versa for a girl/woman who identifes as a boy/man. This is because sex is also a PC, so no other PC can "top trump" it.

I can't find an article about Victoria Prentis (and an multitasking) but she overturned what Suella Braverman had previously said about this PC not applying to children, from when SB was the Attorney General. There's definitely a thread on this somewhere. I'll try and find it when I've got more time.

In terms of responding to PCs: the sensitive, appropriate way to support a child who for whatever reason is unhappy about changing with children of their own sex is to provide a separate private space for their privacy, dignity and comfort.

It is never to sacrifice the privacy, dignity and comfort of other children to them. It's that simple. There is no requirement for this sacrifice of other people.

It is absolutely possible to meet the requests and wishes of trans people for alternative provisions, but other people's resources cannot be regarded as available to be commandeered and redirected. Nor can one particular group of children be seen as in a higher hierarchy of care and importance to other children, so that sometimes the needs of more important children can be met by sacrificing the needs and equalities of the lesser children. That is nowhere in any PC or law.