Not again! - Government is proposing to allow trans-identifying boys into under 18s girls’ school sport - unless it is deemed unsafe

[Another2Cats]

Very much as the title. An account I follow on Twitter/X @ SEENinSport posted this tweet.

https://x.com/SportSEENuk/status/2041037786082329070?s=20

Apparently there is an open consultation from the Dept for Education

'Keeping children safe in education: 2026 proposed revisions'

One of these revisions is that schools may choose to allow boys to take part in girls sports. There are also other issues about 'social transitioning'

It says that there are "some" sports that "may" need to be played in single-sex groups from a certain age. Frankly though, I can't think of any school sports that shouldn't be single-sex activities.

Apart from these sort of 'maybe' sports, the new guidance says that schools will need to consider any boys requesting to play in girls sports in light of the advice on "considering requests for support with social transition"

This is from paras 96 and 97 of the draft proposed changes:

96 Some sports may need to be played in single-sex groups from a certain age to ensure children’s safety, and where this is the case there should be no exceptions. In other cases, schools or colleges may have adopted a policy of single-sex sports for reasons related to fairness.

97 Where there are no safety concerns and a child makes a request relating to
how they participate, schools and colleges will need to consider the request in light of the advice on “considering requests for support with social transition”. This means that the school or college would need to take into account all the relevant factors, including whether supporting social transition is overall in the best interests of the child, as well as considering the impact on other children and the aim of creating safe and fair environments for children to participate in PE.

Frankly, the whole thing about even considering "supporting social transition" is entirely wrong, I feel.

Link to the proposed revisions:

https://consult.education.gov.uk/independent-education-and-school-safeguarding-division/keeping-children-safe-in-education-2026-revisions/supporting_documents/keeping_children_safe_in_education_2026_draft_for_consultationpdf-1

.

SEENinSport has suggested the following:

The survey has 41 questions but Q35 is the key one for sport

If you only have a couple of minutes, you can press return for each question till you reach Q35

They also have a link to suggested answers here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/67fa41451fd5090aa3fb410b/t/69ceb2a41c966b1fc3a00b94/1775153828864/KCSIE+SEEN+in+Sport+response+Feb+2026+%286%29.pdf

and their website page on the issue is here:

https://www.seeninsport.org/consultation-on-kcsie-2026

The consultation is open until 22nd April and if you wish to contribute your thoughts on any of the questions then the government consultation form is here:

https://consult.education.gov.uk/independent-education-and-school-safeguarding-division/keeping-children-safe-in-education-2026-revisions/consultation/intro/

As I read it, that would be a decision to be made between the school and the child, with the only constraint being if it would reasonably be considered unsafe. That would nearly always mean a boy being excluded from competing with girls. I can't see a problem with this.

Sorry, exactly how is it like sharia law?

Is this posted on the wrong thread? MN will move it for you if so.

Why do girls not need to know about condoms and boys about self defence?

More widely looking at the guidelines, this abandons “fairness” as a criterion of having sex separated sports. Only “safety” is to be taken into account.

Can you say “girls as support animals for troubled boys” any louder?

"Where there are no safety concerns and a child makes a request relating to
how they participate, schools and colleges will need to consider the request in light of the advice on “considering requests for support with social transition”. This means that the school or college would need to take into account all the relevant factors, including whether supporting social transition is overall in the best interests of the child, as well as considering the impact on other children and the aim of creating safe and fair environments for children to participate in PE"

This says to me that social transition is not instant - has to be in the interest of the child AND impact on others must be considered.

I think this allows teachers/schools/other parents an ability to protest and to say no to social transition, even if parents are pushing for it - or child is. They can say 'no, this is not in your best interests or - it has a negative impact on others in the school'

In terms of the equality act even a socially transitioned child should have no access to single sex provision such as toilets /changing rooms which are provided for safety and dignity of each sex.

How about fairness to the girls being a criterion? Why does it explicitly not take into account the disadvantage to girls?

I don’t know that they need to put any references to social transition in here. Surely if a girl wants to play football with the boys, or a boy wants to do dance class with the girls, they can just request this and the teachers can assess it on these criteria without needing a big gender and social transition chat?

This should be a straightforward bit of guidance on mixed sex sports, to cover all children, no matter what their ‘gender’. You don’t have to pretend to change sex.

@MyAmpleSheep "The Equality Act 2010 contains an exception in relation to single-sex sport. It applies to participation in any sport or game, or activity of a competitive nature, where the physical strength, stamina or physique of the average girl would put her at a disadvantage in competition with the average boy (or vice versa). This means that schools and colleges can separate children according to their biological sex in these circumstances without discriminating unlawfully against them on the basis of their sex."

So this is where it says - if there is unfair advantage to competition (ie fairness) (which there is at secondary school, maybe not at primary) then sex segregation is fine.

It's not just about safety. Fairness is also considered here - and later it states that some schools have sex segregated totally on the grounds of fairness.

I'm confused, the policy specifically references fairness twice?

I think they've put the social transition bit in for clarification - to allow people to say no in most circumstances - giving reasons - not in child's best interest, not fair to wider group

If it's not there then there will be activist parents saying 'what about my extra special child' - now there is answer to this

I know what the act says. My point is the draft guidance makes safety a mandatory consideration but fairness to girls as optional.

That's pretty much how I read the policy - if a girl wants to play whatever sport with the boys, and vice versa, and there's no safety issue, and (very much secondarily) no fairness issue, then happy days.

I can get onboard with lots of what's posted here about trans women, or males with DSDs, competing in women's sports. But this is a million miles removed from that.

Some posters seem to just have a kind of knee jerk overreaction to anything that could possibly be relevant to trans people, including (in this case) seeing things that simply aren't there.

Girls drop out of playing sport and participating in PE lessons for a variety of reasons.

Having dance classes or yoga might entice them back to the lessons. Having boys in the class will exclude many girls. It's not a matter of safety or fairness, its not wanting to bend over or shake their bits in front of boys.

My experience of kids is that, most of the time, they don't give a monkey's about having the occasional trans child in their midst.

I appreciate your concerns but you need to be wary of projecting your own views onto others that don't share them, based on zero evidence.

It simply is there, when they refer to Social Transition twice. Bolded for you.

97 Where there are no safety concerns and a child makes a request relating to
how they participate, schools and colleges will need to consider the request in light of the advice on “considering requests for support with social transition”. This means that the school or college would need to take into account all the relevant factors, including whether supporting social transition is overall in the best interests of the child, as well as considering the impact on other children and the aim of creating safe and fair environments for children to participate in PE.

I'd repeat, if there's a Gregory's Girl scenario where a girl is really good at football, or a Billy Elliot scenario where a boy really wants to do dance, I have no problem with that in principle, schools need a framework that enables them to do a proper risk assessment.

I do object to DfE sneaking in social transition as a justification, when there's been a sustained argument over whether or not schools should support social transition at all (aren't the DfE draft guidelines on this yet another piece of guidance currently warming Bridget Philippson's bum? It's hard to keep track)

I think schools can consider carefully whether a boy is sincere in wanting to do dance/yoga or whether they are likely to cause issues . Same as whether a girl wanting to do a boy specific sports provision fully understands the safety risks.

I am confident that PE teachers (who are renown for being tough nuts) can put any boy at the front or get rid of them if they are causing issues.

Also, boys can be just as shy of their bodies as girls.

I do yoga and dance in mixed sex groups and any issues are dealt with by the teacher.

No girl is going to pipe up and lose all her friends and have parents and teachers telling her it is simply not a problem and dont be a bigot.

And why should she, the adults are supposed to be Keeping them SAFE in Schools, hence the title of the policy?

Oh it absolutely does mention social transition, though it's not the heart of the thing and the policy appears sensible with or without the trans aspect.

My point was that people were repeatedly saying the policy completely rejects any notion of fairness, whereas it's repeatedly mentioned. At this point, it seems some anti-trans posters just want something to rail against, whether that thing actually exists or not.

I'm confused, the policy identifies safety as the number one priority?

The mere existence of a trans person is not, per se, a threat?

setting male precedence and importance over females in law.

GIrls need to matter enough to have their own sports and events as a sex class, without everything they're allowed being predicated on whether or not it suits the special needs of boys. The message in this is that it is right and normal that some boys will be in single sex spaces and that nice, normal girls submit to this without questioning it.

This has been destruction tested over the past decade. It is what led to the SCJ being reaffirmed. It has led to distressed teenaged girls being required to undress in the presence of a teenaged boy, based on this nice, doesn't really matter, no one (who matters) minds, it's fine attitude.

It's not fine. Girls are not resources for boys. Girls are not less important. Girls are enough by themselves. To be 'kind' to those boys, you have to trample on the girls while convincing the girls that lovely girls and women like being trampled. Bigger picture involved here. Ten years of history in this. Case by case does not work for girls and women, even if some individual women shrug and say they're all right Jack. It's a shame that the vulnerable populations of the girls involved never get a thought or mention, but doesn't that just say it all?

And this is yet more of this underhand, appalling government trying to sneak back to case by case meaning boy/man by boy/man. And we all know from experience: case by case means self ID. It means all of them, any boy or man who wants, regardless of suitability because one means all, you cannot distinguish between them. It means girls as a sex class always being subordinated to the inner life of a boy, with the message that they're misbehaving or wrong to protest or resist this (if not actual consequences for 'not being kind' which is a very new and interesting term for female obedience to men). And it means the end of single sex spaces, just with a lot of frantic and stupid lying involved.

Pretending this is about 'trans kids' when it is about Boys and Girls is part of the problem.

Pretending that boys can be girls is the threat.

Pretending safeguarding doesn't exist when a boy pretends he is a girl, is a threat.

Hope that helps.

It makes it easy for ideology to trump everything else, especially as there will be a lot of pressure on schools from parents and TRA groups to socially (including sport) transition children. There will be a lot of arguably grey cases, where ideology will win out. Only a clear NO in law or in decisions by sports associations who are prepared to risk a court case will work.

I am aghast at people saying swimming could be a mixed sport at school. Ok if this is just for swimming lessons (up to a point) but competitive swimming would be deeply unfair for girls past age 10 or 11.
I used to swim competitively for my (secondary) school and would not have a chance if I had to compete against boys, either for a place in the team, or in races against other schools. Even if the boys weren’t always bigger initially, they were definitely either stronger or faster, or both.

It is not fair to girls to pretend boys can be girls, no .