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

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Hello everyone - I was hoping to start a working group of some sort in order to respond to the proposed changes to KCSIE (Keeping Children Safe In Education)

Press release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-publish-new-gender-guidance-for-schools

Proposed changes and response mechanism https://consult.education.gov.uk/independent-education-and-school-safeguarding-division/keeping-children-safe-in-education-2026-revisions/

I have a large personal interest in this. If you are not aware, I am the father in this article in The Times https://archive.ph/C4eXs

Can we come together to build a strategy of supporting the parts the changes which are great, for example the very clear statements of toilets and changing rooms being single sex?

And think how to propose possible changes to the statements about sport and especially about allowing social transitioning at school?

I'd very much love to hear your ideas and suggestions. I don't want to lead the group especially or tell anyone what to do - I am certain there are people with more knowledge than me, but I thought I could start off the conversation?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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’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!

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 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

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.

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 😂

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..?

See if AI can do a good précis?

I use bullet points.
Lengthy answers will get ignored - narrow it down to the key messages.

(Obviously my numerous lengthy posts on here don't do that....😅)

Chat GPT introduced the word “ transgender” so I am going to avoid.

I’ve edited and edited and have something that fits. Not enough words to be polite! These are the points I’ve made (written better I hope):

• it embeds a contested idea in KCSIE
• due to inherent safeguarding risks, schools must never support ST without clinical intervention and parental involvement
• there are loopholes allowing parents to not be informed. There can be no exceptions to safeguarding principles
• evidence suggests serious risks of ST
• supporting ST without clinical guidance is not kind for anyone
• the living in stealth section is particularly egregious and unacceptable- does not safeguard anyone
• the point about detransition should be more powerfully made. Desistence is the norm
• need more than 1200 characters to do justice

I’m going to sleep on it and have another go another day!

@Cantunseeit well done.

I am definitely guilty of a propensity towards long paragraphs!

I will endeavour to do better!!

Edited to add: that was supposed to have quoted @MrsOvertonsWindow 's comment above.

Convince me that it isn’t the polite thing to do and that misgendering isn’t rude.

Realised I had missed this ⬆️

This is a tough one a few reasons:

1. for anyone who doesn't believe in gender identity, there is no such thing as "misgendering"
2. it's impossible to know for certain (although there are often several clues) whether someone who has preferred pronouns that differ from their sex gets a sexual thrill from having their gender identity validated e.g. a male being referred to as "she" or "Miss"
3. notwithstanding point 2, there are people who genuinely feel offended at "misgendering" (both trans-identified people and allies) because they believe it is disrespectful

So no, I can't convince you it isn't rude, because to some people it is - point 3.

But on the flip side, to some people (e.g. me) being coerced and guilt-tripped into using words I don't believe is rude- point 1.

Equally, I find the idea of being expected to participate in someone's sexual fetish rude - point 2. Obviously we never know what people are thinking but if someone is giving away clues (hiding in plain sight) that they are an autogynophile, I find it rude that there would be an expectation from them and others around them I'd join in with it by actively using opposite-sex pronouns. No thank you.

Ultimately, it's rude to expect anyone to use words that don't represent their own values. If trans(-identifying) people (or their allies) can't accept that I am making an effort to avoid causing upset by completely avoiding all pronouns when referring to trans(-identifying) people in the singular, then they are the ones with the problem. I use they/them for sentences involving plurals e.g. when talking about transwomen or transmen.

Equally, I don't expect anyone else to follow my values. If it's important to someone that they use sex-based pronouns to describe people at all times, grea - it's a reflection of their own values, biology and standard grammar. It's also logical e.g. as laid out very well in the "pronouns are rohypnol" essay. My caveat for supporting it as "not rude" (by my own values) would be that it's not being done maliciously e.g. repeatedly and pointedly doing it in a situation where the person's sex is irrelevant. TBH I personally find any form of pronoun policing, telling people what pronouns to use, rude and when I see people doing it online, I do a silent eye-roll and scroll past. Pronoun battles become tedious because no consensus will ever be reached. There is no objective threshold of what's rude and what's not on anything in life, not just this subject. There are far too many value and belief differences in the world so trying to reach one is pointless.

Rudeness aside, what's far more concerning is coercion. I hope I'm paraphrasing this fairly: you mentioned earlier in the thread that children at your school "correct" each other on pronoun use without staff needing to be involved. These children are coercing each other. Any staff who stand by and let that happen are complicit in supporting this - to use a phrase that my daughters' school uses, they are part of the problem because they are bystanders. In any other situation involving beliefs that not everyone holds (e.g. if a Christian child was telling other children that they needed to believe in god or they would burn in hell) and a teacher hears it going on, I expect they would step in and explain that people have different beliefs. The same should happen here and this explanation needs to make it clear that the concept of "misgendering" applies only in situations where people believe in gender identity - that means recognising that it's OK for someone who doesn't believe in gender to use sex-based pronouns when describing someone. Not an easy conversation but an important one - which is why it's imperative that this KCSIE guidance recognises that it's dangerous to allow this situation to continue. And yes, as awkward as it might be, that also needs to include situations where teachers use opposite-sex preferred pronouns. My daughters think I'm rude for not actively using the words "she" or "her" to describe Mrs [X] at school. I use Mrs X's name. I wouldn't ever do so in person with Mrs X, should such a situation ever arise (see point 2 above), but I do so because I refer to every teacher at school as Mr X, Ms X, Mrs X or Miss X. I would even say Mx if the situation arose, and would (probably) attempt to keep a smirk off my face when doing so. However, I use no pronouns whatsoever and I think my daughters are rude (to me) for expecting me to do otherwise. One of my daughters recognises that this teacher is male, the other isn't sure... despite how obvious it is (such is the power of coercion and pronouns are rohypnol etc**). I've explained how upsetting I find it to them that they expect me to change my own values but they aren't budging. Interestingly, they support me not using any pronouns for a female child at school who they both know well (my daughters say he/him), because they agree that my concerns about social transition in children are valid, so pronouns never get in the way of conversations about this child.

** I don't tell my daughter she needs to stop using she/her for this teacher but I have told her that I'm worried she's been coerced into not seeing/recognising the teacher's male head shape, shoulder shape and gait. I've explained that it's important to know who the males and females are so that you know when someone is breaking the law re single-sex spaces. I've also explained why we have single-sex spaces. She recognises their importance agrees that males shouldn't be in women's spaces but hasn't joined the dots yet. Obviously I could be wrong about Mrs X's sex but there are plenty of other clues that suggest I'm not.

Apologies for the length of that response but hopefully that all makes sense. As it is currently written, KCSIE is swerving this key point: we need to know who the males and females are (and be able to state this using standard English) so that safeguarding children at school is effective. In some situations, this will require "misgendering" to be accepted as an objective way to do this.

(Edited to amend an amusingly ironic grammar adjustment. Points to anyone who spotted it 😂 And yes, I do make things harder for myself gramatically with my pronoun avoidance approach).

*make an amusingly ironic grammar adjustment. FFS 😂 Yes, I do make things harder for myself with my pronoun avoidance approach. But equally, I have no doubt that without this approach (IRL) I would not have been able to support my daughter.

Morning all, I was at the march in London yesterday and had the opportunity to thank Stephanie Davies Arai for all her work (and have a bit of blub and a hug). Some of her must have rubbed off as I woke up today with some inspo! I will post below my draft 2 which fits the character count.

What have I missed?

Embeds a highly contested idea into KCSIE without context

Uses activist language to normalise social transition & imply it is positive / lowkey

Does not explain risks of harm or evidence that 66%-95% children will desist without intervention (Cass p67)

Buries info on “detransition”. Desistance is the norm and schools should keep options open to avoid cementing the child in distress. Does not make clear there is no way to tell which children will desist

Assumes throughout that school will be making a decision that it is NOT qualified to do. Partially quotes Cass p164 “This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.” but does not spell out what action a school should take

Contains loopholes enabling schools not to inform parents. These must be closed. There can be no exceptions to safeguarding principles. Teachers must not “keep secrets”

Selectively quotes Cass and is self-contradictory. Children “living is stealth” is particularly egregious & does not safeguard the child or others. This section contradicts par 273

Protection for religion/belief and avoidance of compelled speech is not clear or strong enough

That looks great. Thank you.

I've set aside some time later today to work on mine and will post of I can think of anything else.

And yes - Stephanie is great. TT offer such a wealth of support - a brilliant organisation.

This is great. Have you got room to mention autism as a possible root cause distress? According to Cass ~35% of referrals to GIDS (2010-2019) were autistic. Two GIDS clinicians estimated it at 48% when considering autistic traits, in that same time period. And (anecdotally) I would anticipate this percentage is now even higher - when you see or hear about children with gender dysphoria in more recent years, the vast majority seem to be autistic.

Perhaps your first bullet could be expanded e.g.

Embeds a contested idea (gender identity and social transition) into KCSIE without context e.g. without considering the risk of conflation where children may be experiencing autism-related puberty distress.

Also, if space..

1. No staff must access single-sex facilities designated for the opposite sex (on school premises or school trips)

2. No child must partake in any lessons for the opposite sex, where such lessons have been designated single-sex

(I've gone with 'must' as this reflects laws on single-sex provisions)

Point 1 adds staff to the existing wording (that only covers children). I can't imagine I've got children at the only UK school with a situation where a male teacher may have access to girls' spaces.

Point 2 covers the current fudge on PE lessons (where the clarity on single-sex lessons has bizarrely only been confirmed re safety).