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 also blame the DfE and Ofsted for not stamping it out from the top down"

Agreed. The damage done by allowing male transactivists to have so much influence over children's education has been immense. I note that Amanda Spielman (ex head of Ofsted) who presided over much of the initial promotion of this in schools, has now reverse ferreted and is highly critical. Haven't noted any apologies from her but in the spirit of that golden bridge hope, hope she keeps speaking out.

One thing that occurs to me is that there needs to be an instruction to schools that these issues must only be addressed vie the KCSIE guidelines as a safeguarding issue, not as a separate policy that counters this.

"Trans" guidance for schools is based on the demands of adult groups, predominantly male dominated, over keen on influencing children into boundary violation, erasure of sex based language, spaces, sport etc.

It must be made clear that they mustn't adopt additional policies that undermine the KCSIE guidance.

The KCSIE guidelines are still unclear about who has the protected characteristics of gender reassignment and what exactly it means for those who do.

It's also unclear because the protected characteristics protection applies to people who are perceived to have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, even if they don't actually have it. (E.g. discriminating against someone because you think they are gay even if they're not).

Yes, it's all blocked up from the top. The old EHRC guidance was legally wrong and was shown to be wrong in the FWS/Supreme Court judgment. New EHRC guidance for service providers has been passed to the Secretary of State for Education but Bridget Phillipson is still sitting on it although the FWS judgment and the EHRC's interim guidance that followed were pretty plain - sex means biological sex not gender identity, and gender reassignment protection doesn't give people the right to be treated as if they are the opposite sex. They only have to be treated equally with people of their own sex.

A child might or might not be allowed to wear opposite-sex clothes to school but permission to wear a dress either applies to all boys or to none. Schools might reasonably decide that any boy who wanted to could wear a frock. It might depend on whether the school uniform frocks were decent on teenage boys - some skirts might not be, revealing bulgy crotches or whatever. Decency is a legitimate aim.

There shouldnt be any legal guidelance that states a child - of unspecified age - can have the pc of gender reassignment. To me it undermines the pc of age and the right of children to be safeguarded against an age inappropriate ideology. But I understand that the trans activist influence is far more powerful in law than the rights of children to be safe.

It's incoherent and the failure to account for age and safeguarding means we'll continue to see the Munchausen parents with "trans" toddlers and transactivists discussing children as mini adults rather than vulnerable children entitled to be safeguarded.

The old EHRC guidance was legally wrong

The technical guidance to schools, or some other EHRC guidance? I'm not clear on all the details here.

The consultation deadline is the 22nd April and as many of us as possible need to respond. We know that the chaps at Stonewall, gendered intelligence, translucent etc are fuming that this is being addressed as a safeguarding matter. They will be responding trying to maintain the trans stranglehold on policy in schools and it's critical that as many parents as possible respond from a child centred pov.

It was clarified in 2023 (so pretty recently, and I think probably in response to Kemi Badenoch's efforts to write trans guidance for schools) in the EHRC technical guidance to schools that children can have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so I'm assuming that lawyers have already looked at this.

I completely understand that lawyers have written this and make no comment about the extreme capture of the law by transacitvism (see the Bench Book debacle etc).
Common sense states that claiming that the pc of gender reassignment can apply to an 8 month old, 2 / 3 year old etc is nonsense and dangerous for the reasons I've already stated above.

It's wrong. It may be the law but it puts children at risk and that's unacceptable

You can't trumpet the law when it goes in your favour and ignore it when it doesn't though.

Yes and plenty of schools have recognised this and do not change pronouns or names for this reason. I suspect these are the schools where there are fewer students who are gender questioning because the social contagion is not propped up by the adults.

In my DD's secondary toilets are labelled female and male and there is no 'mixed sex by stealth' going on. It's all probably helped by the large religious communities whose children are at the school and for whom gender ideology and its demands obviously affect their religious freedoms.

When 'discrimination' is spoken of I always think that there's been huge discrimination between schools in terms of the safeguarding. My daughter's school follows the law and no girl is forced to strip off in front of a male bodied individual or participate in contact mixed sex sports (they do mix for non-contact sports). OP's daughter clearly is having a worse school experience because that's not the case in her school.

The term ‘gender neutral’ toilet made an appearance for a few years. Design-wise it’s never been a regulated term. The phrase ran along in addition to the term unisex for a while. Now, in the latest edition, it’s back to unisex.

I think it's one thing to say that an 8 month old baby can't have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but a completely different thing to say a 16 year old who can make their own medical decisions and appointments can't have it.

The last bit about perception actually pretty clear. If you bully or exclude someone because you think they're a girl that is sex discrimination, even if they're not actually a girl but a feminine looking boy.

If you bully someone because you think they are transgender then that's gender reassignment discrimination, e.g. if a teacher thinks a boyish girl is actually a boy who is trans and repeatedly chucks her out of the girl's toilet then that might be gender reassignment harassment but not as long as it doesn't keep happening. A school should know what sex their pupils are and should be able to warn staff (and possibly pupils!) that she's a girl after the first complaint.

The Supreme Court did allow for the possibility of excluding a masculinised woman from a women's group but that was about women who'd been taking testosterone bringing a beard and broken voice to a women's rape support group not a tomboy using the girls' toilet.

the technical guidance to schools says that the harassment provision of the Equality Act doesn't apply to gender reassignment

I don't know why harassment only applies to certain protected characteristics here and whether that's only a school thing.

IANAL but it seems like the currently published guidance is potentially wrong on this. I guess the interim guidance (which does cover schools and has proven to be lawful) provides a reasonable hint to suggest that the logical direction of travel will be that harassment can apply to gender reassignment in all situations covered by the EA as per Forstater. We won't find out any time soon though as the final guidance that Phillipson is sitting on doesn't even cover schools.... she's got a whole extra sit-in protest opportunity after her current one finishes.

It has to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim though, I'm not sure what the legitimate aim of stopping boys wearing dresses would be?

Whatever their reason, this needs to apply to all boys (of the biological sex variety). Not just those that are covered under the PC of gender reassignment because they are proposing to undergo a process to change their gender (whatever that means... FFS). It would be interesting to know what the legitimate aim is.

Maybe schools are concerned that up skirting would be even more traumatic for everyone concerned (not just the skirt wearer) if it meant being exposed to a dangling bollock? I can't help thinking about that Alan Partridge episode where a poor distressed Lynn had to let Alan know that the boys were out of the barracks....

But, joking aside, it is difficult to imagine what legitimate reason there is for stopping a boy wearing a skirt to school. As long as he knows he's a boy, and isn't showing signs of fetishist display (perhaps that's the legitimate reason?**), surely it's difficult to justify the restriction.

**Which brings it right back round to safeguarding. Unfortunately, there will be boys who are being groomed into the world of autogynophilia. Some will want to wear a skirt to school as a direct result of this, even if they aren't consciously aware that this is what's driving their need to wear it. Sadly there are young boys (many autistic, socialising online in gaming and anime worlds, with emerging opposite-sex attraction as their sexual maturity starts to kick in) who are on this pathway. Refusing to let any boy wear a skirt because of this risk may well be legitimate. They are children, not adults, and as such are vulnerable. Maybe that particular point needs to be captured in the KCSIE?

Oh, and you can't bully someone because you think they are or might be trans.

Keeping them out of the wrong-sex toilet or accomodation or sport is fine; but a school may alsoneed to provide a suitable individual or unisex or mixed sex alternative.

Great points from Mrs O about KCSIE. Although doesn't the consultation end on 12th April, rather than the 22nd?

No medical appointments are necessary though. A 2 year old could propose to go through the process of reassigning their gender..

All they need to do is be able to speak and say the relevant words. "I will be a lady when I grow up" is probably enough, given there is no threshold for what this proposal needs to include or lower age limit on how or when it can be expressed.

Here's the current guidance:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Screenshot of relevant section below.

Thankfully the existing wording in the new proposed KCSIE guidance goes some way to addressing this but it doesn't really go far enough. If a parent insists that their primary (or younger) age child needs their social transition respecting, schools will do this... whereas actually, we need KCSIE guidance which looks more like the Prevent info, where the parent is seen in the context of a child who is being radicalised. Obviously that parent may have received really shit advice and may also have been radicalised themselves, but KCSIE should be there to protect the child from the impact of this.

If a Prevent-style approach is used (see my comment above re radicalism) this would stay within the law.

Just as children are allowed to go to Mosques and pray to Allah (or churches and pray to god), if there are signs that a child who is protected by the PC of gender reassignment is being radicalised in a way that could lead to harm (e.g. being locked in to an affirmation pathway from a young age), that's not trumpeting the law.

In the case of religious radicalisation, you don't start (I assume) by trying to convince the radicalised child not to believe in Allah/god. You (I assume) look into factors relating to the radicalised behaviour e.g. plans to take action that can lead to harm. Likewise, nobody needs to tell the child they don't have a gender identity but instead can work with them to understand why they believe they do have one (that differs from their sex) and help unpick it that way. I'm not suggesting it's simple but using a Prevent model as an analogy shows how it could be lawful.

It must be made clear that they mustn't adopt additional policies that undermine the KCSIE guidance.

This bit is super super important and I don't think it's included in the currently proposed KCSIE wording.

My daughters' school has several policies which undermine the current KCSIE guidance re gender identity, let alone the forthcoming proposed one. When I pointed this out to them, I was managed as the problem.... and they since doubled down with more. Although interestingly, they referred to their (terrible, dangerous) mixed-sex sports approach as a "procedure" when I questioned it. Prior to that they had called it a policy.

So, to stop this kind of weasily behaviour, the KCSIE wording should probably refer to "policies or procedures".

No medical appointments are necessary though. A 2 year old could propose to go through the process of reassigning their gender.

Yes but you could argue that a 2 year old shouldn’t be taken seriously as they could equally claim to be a tractor or a bunny rabbit.

Arguing that a 16 year old doesn’t know their own mind is an argument already done and decided (Gillick competence etc).

What an odd response. I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out the massive safeguarding children fail at the centre of claiming that "a child" of any age can have the pc of gender reassignment.

Tbh, I'm a bit surprised at those who earnestly restate "it's the law".
It's wrong. I suspect it goes back to the times when nobody ever thought society would be so stupid as to inflict transgenderism on vulnerable children and toddlers but the reasons for why it's there, don't make it right.

The pc of gender reassignment should NOT apply to babies, toddlers, young children or children unable to give informed consent.

When gender reassignment protection was originally added to the Equality Act 2010 it was not envisaged as applying to children at all, not even to 16 year olds. It was aimed at middle-aged men who were seriously considering surgery and applying for GRCs.

Since then "gender reassignment" has grown legs and run away.

Arguing that a 16 year old doesn’t know their own mind is an argument already done and decided (Gillick competence etc).

Not around gender it isn't. The decisions that can be made by or on behalf of a child even with "Gillick competence" are still contested. The ethical issues around medicalising children are currently being fought out, they caused the halt in prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and they are now causing the delay to the puberty blockers trial. 16 year olds who "know their own minds" don't get to overrule the doctors who know that teen minds change.

And the ethical issues around social transition for children or enforcing it on other children at whatever age haven't been resolved either.

In practice, the safeguarding policy in schools is meant to be prioritised over other policies. But given how fundamentally transgenderism has undermined child safeguarding, the flaws are significant.
This is 3 years old now - Policy Exchange did some significant research into how schools were operating in this area. The title "Asleep at the wheel" is very apt

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/asleep-at-the-wheel/#contents__accordion

And my point is that Stonewall et al have come under a lot of (valid) criticism for writing their suggested guidance for schools stating the law as they would like it to be rather than the law as it actually was.

So it doesn’t matter if gender recognition shouldn’t apply to children, if the legal interpretation is that it does apply to children then that cannot be ignored or overlooked or contested when writing their guidelines because that’s essentially what Stonewall did. If the law needs changing then that cannot be tackled within these guidelines.

And the legal interpretation is clearly that it does apply to children otherwise Kemi Badenoch would have issued some extremely strict guidance when she was in charge. But she didn’t. Because she couldn’t.

Funnily enough, I sent that document to the DSL when it came out.

That was back when I was liaising with the school about what was happening nationally and how they might want to adapt their approach. I didn't tell them what to do, I just signposted where they had stuff that wasn't in line with each piece of available information as it came out. Back then, the only nationally available information from a public body was the interim Cass Report, which came out in 2022. It was very clear that social transition isn't a neutral act and what this means for children who identify as the opposite sex. Arguably this was clearer than in the final report. I was very careful sharing things like this document and only did so as an FYI, given it could be construed as being political. However, it was useful for them to see what kind of information was being discussed. Anyway, along came KCSIE 2024 and they dug their heels in and the rest... as they say.. is history... A story for another day/thread 🙃

But schools really can't get away from the need to follow a safeguarding approach on this now, no matter how hard they try. The key thing now is to successfully whack-a-mole away the loopholes that are in the current proposed wording for the 2026 guidance. My daughters' school won't be the only one that has an approach that could easily slip within them.