EHRC consultation - schools technical guidance

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/technical-guidance-schools-consultation

'This technical guidance explains schools’ legal obligations not to discriminate against, harass or victimise pupils, as set out in chapter 1 of Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act).

The guidance is different in England, Scotland and Wales.

We are running a consultation on this guidance. You can access the consultations for each nation from this page'

'Technical guidance for schools consultation 2026

This technical guidance explains schools’ legal obligations not to discriminate against, harass or victimise pupils, as set out in chapter 1 of Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act).
This guidance is not a statutory code issued under section 14 of the Equality Act 2006, but it may be used as evidence in legal proceedings.
We have updated the guidance to:

• include updates and developments in the law relating to types of discrimination and protected characteristic groups
• explain how the Act applies in different education settings and institutions like academies, special schools and school-based clubs
• clarify the interaction between the Act and other related laws
• explain how the Act applies in specific circumstances, for example where restraint, isolation and seclusion is used

We have developed guidance for each nation to reflect the differences in law across England, Scotland and Wales.

We are running this consultation to gather feedback on how clearly the guidance explains schools’ obligations under the equality act and whether we have accurately reflected the law.

You can access the guidance, consultation surveys and instructions on how to take part by selecting the links on this page.'

But the problem there is that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to children.

If it didn’t apply to children then this legal guidance could look very different, but as it does, then hands are tied a lot of the time.

That doesn't mean society should accept the removal of safeguarding for children just because transactivists until recently have held the power and been able to undermine good practice in schools. I've said for years that educators have been systematically deskilled. Their well established professional knowledge about how to support and educate vulnerable children has been eroded by the niche demands of transactivists. This technical guidance builds on that undermining of children's welfare and rights.

We need to support organisations like Sex Matters, Transgender Trend etc in challenging all this. The law is an ass in pretending that the pc of gender reassignment applies to children and babies. It's time to start pushing back at this tsunami of adults sexualising and adultifying children and to insist on returning to the fundamental principle of safeguarding them. This should be at the core of responses to this grim guidance.

It sounds like you want to just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these children don’t exist as a group. The distress they feel is real and forcing them into distressing situations because it fits your worldview isn’t the answer.

They do not exist as one group though do they?

They exist as 2 groups, one group of males and one group of females.

That's the whole point.

They are a group of children with the PC of gender reassignment. Ignore that and just pretending that they are a regular member of their sex with no additional needs doesn’t reflect reality and will just lead to distress.

That's such a childish response. This is an adult discussion about this exceptionally vulnerable group of children being potentially harmed by the tone deaf technical guidance from the EHRC that pays no attention to the rights of children to be safeguarded or knowledge of how schools operate.
A pp has pointed out how the EHRC are simply using the pc of gender reassignment that allegedly applies to children of any age (therefore including babies) and has ended up providing guidance that potentially makes these children less safe in schools.

I have no idea how this should be resolved but ignoring society's need to safeguard children is not the way forward.

Safeguarding...
There's been a change.

From 1 September 2026, the law about regulated activity with children has changed.
Previously volunteers working with children did not require an Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check if they were sufficiently supervised by someone else eg a teacher at the school where the volunteer is giving a talk.
The change to the regulated activity threshold means that any volunteer working with children on more than 3 days in any 30-day period or overnight , requires an Enhanced DBS check with Children’s Barred List. This could potentially include some of your members who regularly give talks to schools. Young people’s participation in training courses could also fall under the regulated activity threshold.
The GOV.UK website provides more information and useful examples of who this change affects: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/change-to-the-definition-of-regulated-activity-with-children-from-1-september-2026

Thank you. That's another loohole closed although will inevitable make running some benign activities (reading with children) more challenging for schools to administer.

loophole loophole 🙄

I don't think it is OK for a boy to come to school in a skirt. At all. I think he should be sent home and told to change. But obviously I am a terrible old bigot.

Why is it not OK?

For one reason, because one of the purposes of schooling to teach your little smashers that the world does not revolve around them and their feelings. Or, indeed, those of their parents.

I’m not connecting the dots from letting someone change uniform to them thinking everything resolves around them. What about adults? Do you think it’s okay for a trans woman to wear a dress or a skirt?

Adults are not school children, so yes, of course that's different.
If you want another (better) reason, here's one: I don't believe in the concept of the 'trans child'.

How does one become a trans adult if a trans child does not exist?

I’m an adult and transsexual. I felt the same way before becoming an adult, so what was I if not a trans child?

Children are entitled to grow and mature without being gaslit that their bodies are wrong but a sex change is the cure.
What matters is that children are allowed to develop and mature until they have developed the intellectual and critical thinking skills to navigate adult life. That their responsible adults safeguard them from those who seek to influence them into believing that the challenge of adolescence can be waved away with a sex change.
And that self interested adults understand that their personal experience cannot and should not be applied to children generally in the interests of promoting an ideology.

Interesting that you say transsexual not transgender. Do you actually believe you have changed sex?

No, I do not believe I have changed biological sex. I use transsexual because the term transgender doesn’t sit right with me or reflect my experience. I believe that dysphoria is a requirement for being ‘trans’ and that the end goal is to blend in as much as possible to not cause a fuss.

Thanks for clarifying.

They are all members of their sex, as is every human being who has ever lived.

The NHS now uses 'gender incongruent' child. Which is fairly meaningless, because who the fuck is 'gender congruent', and what does 'gender' even really mean?

But Cass was clear that 'socially transitioning' a child was not a neutral act.

How do schools reconcile the tension between safeguarding, NHS/Cass/KCIE statutory guidelines and the EA's 'gender reassignment' pc?

The state is on one hand very firm on the fact that children can't 'transition' and can't 'change gender', but on the other is seeking to say they have the pc of 'gender reassignment'.

You mean boys who say they are trans blending in in the boys' changing rooms?

Sure, but the purpose of the technical guidance is to interpret the law as it is for schools. Saying that the law-as-it-is is an ass and should be different doesn't mean that schools should be directed to behave as if the law was as an external organisation want it to be instead. I mean, that's what Stonewall have been strongly criticised for doing all along.

Schools often make adjustments for pupils. We have kids who can't wear a tie (sensory) or who can't attend assembly (anxiety) or who jump the lunch queue (autism). What is the legitimate argument that a kid who can't cope getting changed in the correct sex changing facilities (gender dysphoria) should be forced to use those facilities or otherwise not participate in PE? Suggesting that allowing them to opt out of those facilities is discrimination as Sex Matters do doesn't make sense to me when we make similar adjustments for other pupils with other needs.

I agree that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is a mess and needs revisiting. It is extremely woolly as to whether it applies to people who identify as non-binary ("sometimes, possibly") for example. I'm not sure how it could be legally tackled to remove this protection from children though, when it doesn't matter if the child is actually trans or not to have it (i.e. the belief that there is no such thing as a 'trans child'), they just have to be perceived to be trans, which obviously some children are.

It's a massive contradiction isn't it? I know that the State has slowly understood that we've failed children / young people by enabling so many of them to buy into all this. But until we collectively face up to the nonsense that children of any age can have the pc of gender reassignment, we'll continue to allow transactivists to use children to promote the notion of changing sex.

It's a mess and caused by naivety and an unawareness of what was being proposed by advocates back in the day (as evidenced via the Denton's report)

This technical guidance is an embarrassment - you only have to look at the incoherence of some of the sections quoted upthread. But it's also dangerous as it seeks to undermine the steps the State has taken to reintroduce safeguarding to this vulnerable group of children. Whether there's the "power" and political will to address this who knows. Children are very low on the priorities of those in power compared to pandering to men wanting access to women and children when they're vulnerable.

I don't think the state is very firm that children can't transition at all? There is definitely scope for 'social transition' in KCSIE and still children on medication. Or do you mean get a GR certificate?