Your opportunity to change the new schools guidance, which includes socially transitioning children and mixed sex sports closes at midnight on 22nd April - please respond if you can

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Just incase you missed the details - it's essential as many parents as possible give their views

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/

Lot's of real issues remain:

• There is no definition of gender questioning
• Pronouns are not dealt with firmly enough
• The social transition section is seen as weak, contradictory, and confused. There is no definition of social transition.
• Single-sex sport needs stronger wording
• Too much room remains for “gender identity” concepts to creep in
• The guidance is not well synchronised with other school guidance
• Staff beyond safeguarding leads may miss the message
• Toilet/changing guidance still leaves practical loopholes
• The draft is not explicit enough about the safeguarding risks of premature social transition

Bumping for more eyes on this.

Thanks. I assume this is England and Wales specific guidance, but it will potentially impact everyone.

I think it is yes, huge affect on 95% of the children in the UK

Thank you for this - I've started to fill in this consultation and hope many others will too.

Helpful input from Transgender Trend (Stephanie Davies-Arai's org):

www.transgendertrend.com/kcsie-draft-guidance-consultation/

Thanks, that's really interesting, eg the lack of definition of the phrases ‘social transition’, ‘gender’ and ‘living in stealth’.

Not directly addressing the consultation, but has some facts that relate
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5518795-still-asleep-at-the-wheel-a-further-examination-of-gender-and-safeguarding-in-schools-policy-exchange

Without definitions - the whole thing is a house of cards

12 hours or so left

we must have a voice

Thanks.

Some more helpful input, this time from Read some Piaget please!
(@prof_curiosity1) on X:

Not a niche issue: why gender identity impacts ALL children

https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2045390010560520341

And an archive version:

https://archive.is/tNwWg

Looking at this now - no questions on para 25 but surely schools have been carrying this out at an institutional level where they have been telling girls they have to let men into their single sex spaces? And then punishing bullying those who dare to say no or question?

25. Emotional abuse: the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and adverse effects on the child’s emotional development. It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include verbal abuse, such as persistent criticism, belittling, or name-calling, as well as not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or ‘making fun’ of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond a child’s developmental capability as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning or preventing the child from participating in normal social interaction. It may involve seeing or hearing the illtreatment of another. It may involve serious bullying (including cyberbullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment of a child, although it may occur alone.

I responded to that one in a similar way , yes they are

I was also not very keen on this in the gender questioning children's section because we all know that the use of accurate sex based language (when used in an appropriate way) has been considered bullying and harrassment which must be clarified.

I think this para needs some updating to clarify that accurate sex based language should not automatically be considered to be adversarial:

250. We know that bullying has a detrimental impact on young people’s mental health and their ability to thrive at school and college. Bullying can affect a child's attainment and wellbeing. We are clear that all forms of bullying, for whatever reason, are unacceptable. Schools and colleges must take a strong stand against all forms of bullying, and schools and colleges should tackle bullying at the earliest opportunity to prevent it from escalating.

gah I forgot to put this in the box at the end as I was including notes about trans identifying staff and the need for guidance on neutral/inclusive terminology. can someone else comment on this part about sex based lingo not automatically being bullying

Done.

Bloody hell that was hard work. And the word limits were a pain. However, it's done.

One of the things I kept emphasising was that safeguarding in KCSIE should not be based on who shouts loudest in the consultation response (the text about the volume of consultation responses was concerning in this context) but about evidence-based risk assessment and the law.

My general concern about this is that they're more interested in a popularity contest (i.e. politics) than making children safer in school.

I put in the bit about verbal abuse that what is considered abusive can be very subjective and this could be open to political bias. Sometimes fact based language can be considered abusive by an individual but this doesn't mean facts should be suppressed and free speech within the rules of a school is also important. I said I didn't think specific mention of so-called specific 'abusive' language was helpful and there should be more focus on what healthy relationships look like.

To be fair I was losing the will at this point slightly a lot.

I have been sadly neglecting my paid job for this, so I hope it just doesn't end up in the bin as my previous lengthy tome appears to have given we're doing this shit all over again.

Are they just going to keep consulting in order to remove girls rights in schools? Endless consultation as avoidance of following the law?

I've been banging on about this for years (under a variety of different usernames). Yes, in my opinion social transition of a child /children in schools is emotional abuse (as defined in KCSIE) of all the other children. Especially if it involves those children having to change the way they do anything (which it does if it involves use of wrong-sex spaces or compelled non-standard non-grammatical speech).

Activist schools like the OPs have been committing emotional abuse of all their pupils for years imho.

It really should be a far greater scandal than it is especially since other schools (my DDs) HAVE NOT been doing this.

I went on about this in the last consultation response but skipped it this time due to space constraints.

And staff demanding wrong-sex pronouns and affirmation of a lie from children is DEFINITELY grade A emotional abuse.

Closes TONIGHT

Bumping as today is your last chance to respond

A bump from me as well.

Notable bullshit from GLP https://goodlawproject.org/good-law-project-warns-draft-schools-guidance-could-encourage-unlawful-discrimination/

It's all bollocks, so don't worry, but this is what other respondents will be saying:

• The draft guidance is too restrictive toward trans and gender-questioning pupils, in GLP’s view.
• They say schools should make case-by-case “best interests” decisions, not follow hard rules against social transition.
• They oppose a strong presumption that parents should be told, arguing this can be unsafe for some pupils.
• They argue schools may need to accommodate changes of name, pronouns, and presentation, and that refusing may be discriminatory in some cases.
• They say the draft is too sex-based on toilets, changing rooms and accommodation, and should say more about alternative or private facilities.
• They argue schools are not generally required to provide single-sex facilities in every case.
• On sport, they say exclusion by sex may sometimes be lawful, but the draft does not do enough to address possible discrimination against trans pupils.
• Overall, they frame the draft as risking unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act if schools follow it too rigidly.

Done ✅

And submitted.