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.'

No, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the protected characteristic automatically means that you can force pronouns on teachers and other pupils.

It specifically says where a decision has been taken by the school to permit a pupil to adopt a preferred pronoun, then there would be an expectation to use it or avoid pronouns.

And we know from KCSIE that a school will only decide to permit 'social transition' (which it defines as changes or support put in place to facilitate a pupil presenting as the opposite biological sex) in restricted circumstances. It doesn't relate this restriction to the possession of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but the involvement of parents and professionals.

So yes, pronoun use is social transition, and that section on pronouns only applies to pupils where social transition is agreed.

What is not clear to me is whether allowing gender-questioning children to opt out of using correct sex facilities counts as 'social transition'. If it doesn't, then it wouldn't be subject to the same restrictions. Does allowing a child to use unisex toilets or a separate changing area count as facilitating them to appear as the opposite sex? It wouldn't appear to, so then we could just be looking at this as reasonable adjustments.

Well obviously two adults who are well read on this subject can disagree on interpretation which I think does beg the question of why EHRC is wasting money on this which won't help anyone in the real world, rather than diverting those resources to the front line to perhaps ensure that children can get the appropriate medical support and adjustments they need on an individual basis.

Since KCSIE what schools don't need is guidance, what they need is money which will allow them to support all the individual pupils in their care in a way which is appropriate to their need and within safeguarding frameworks. Possibly by refurbishing the toilets.

I've got children in schools and if anyone tried to compel their speech to something that is - in my opinion backed up by evidence - anti-safeguarding, I would be bringing legal action against the school. Which would use up more of their limited funds.

The shit about pronouns really doesn't help children who are gender questioning. Unless they're rich enough not to go to a state school, they'll never compel everyone's speech for the whole of their life. To pretend they can do so is cruel.

And 'compelling their speech' means anything that isn't natural English. Expecting children to avoid normal pronouns is abusive and damaging to their development, in my opinion.

I mean, we might be able to disagree on the interpretation of the technical guidance re pronouns, but KCSIE is clear that social transition (which would include pronouns) is to be restricted. KCSIE is a legal requirement for safeguarding, the technical guidance is legal advice on interpreting the Equality Act in schools. No headteacher is going to ignore KCSIE's clarity, which they are legally required to have read every year, it is clearly going to be the primary document of reference.

As for why the EHRC have issued this guidance - it's an update which was sorely needed. It wasn't that long ago that the technical guidance referred to transsexual pupils(!) and clearly it needed to be updated post the Supreme Court ruling.

I've included screenshots from the original technical guidance from 2014 - things have come a long way and this latest update clearly is written with KCSIE in mind. However KCSIE has also been written with schools' legal obligations regarding the Equality Act in mind. It's really clear from when Kemi Badenoch was trying to push through her trans guidance for schools that she was hamstrung by the law around the Equality Act from what she actually wanted to do which was ban any sort of social transition/compelled speech in schools.

The question is of whether the technical guidance correctly interprets the law. It clearly didn't in the past. Does it now? Probably?

Saying it's not needed post-KCSIE is incorrect, because the guidance relates to the whole of the Equality Act not just gender reassignment.

Indeed.
There are so many inconsistencies and incoherence in the tech guidance, preumably the EHRC didn't consult with any education lawyers.

Sex Matters have produced a lengthy analysis of the guidance, pointing out how it actively serves to disadvantage gender questioning children.

"..excluding a child from a facility or from safeguarding procedures for their own sex because they identify as transgender could be unlawful direct discrimination, regardless of motive or parental consent.."

".... the EHRC’s position is that it is a disadvantage to a “trans child” to “out” them at school by revealing their sex to other pupils and staff, and that recognising their sex is “transphobia”. This ignores schools’ overriding obligation to record each child’s sex accurately wherever it is recorded and to communicate clear rules. Treating straightforward recognition of sex as “transphobia” is unworkable and undermines safeguarding, the smooth running of a school and other people’s rights."

They highlight numerous inconsistencies and misunderstanding of KCSIE & education law, let alone education practice.

This technical guidance attempts to undermine KCSIE - whether deliberately or in error. It uses discredited language like "trans child" (not used in KCSIE) and will simply encourage the queer theory organisations who have been all over schools for years trying to enforce their niche beliefs on children below the age of consent.

It's well worth reading as it carefully unpicks so much of the activist speak / demands in the proposed guidance. Transactivists will work very hard to persuade others that the technical guidance is great. In reality it simply encourages the targeting of schools in an attempt scare them into complying with adult trans demands that cause to much harm to all children.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Analysis-of-EHRC-draft-technical-guidance-for-schools.pdf

I can’t stand all this ‘guidance’ language. When I try and determine what is actionable and who is responsible I want to know what regulations are and what legislation is. That I can work with.

Which is how the technical guidance should work if safeguarding children was society's priority. Unfortunately in recent years we've pandered to those invested in producing psycho babble masquerading as science, facts and guidance.

Until people tell the "men are women when they say they are" and "sex change is great for children" people to cease, they will continue to take up endless amounts of our time and energy to the detriment of the safety of everyone.

Thank heavens for Sex Matters and all the other organisations patiently unpicking all this nonsense.

I'm so over pandering to this nonsense that I'm now at the FOTTFSOFATFOSM stage. 😁

Sex Matters are very clear that everyone should have equal access to sport, but also think that if a pupil is distressed at getting changed in the correct sex changing room, then that's just too bad and they should be told to get on with it.

What is the plan for that pupil if they then start bunking PE as a result? Stop attending school on PE days? What about their access to sport?

School isn't just about doing what you want to do. Or it never used to be, anyway. Lots of kids don't want to do PE, for a range of reasons.

PE staff, the school and parents will use the same strategies and resources that they use for any child who dislikes PE or any other aspect of schooling. Schools make reasonable adjustments for children in all sorts of circumstances and also say no to children where appropriate.

People can be incredibly compassionate but both schools and society cannot pretzel systems and organisations into knots because mentally unwell children have been led to believe that their beliefs are more important than the rest of the school community.

Society can't operate like this and adults are doing a great disservice to these children by telling them otherwise. If they don't develop the confidence and resilience to manage challenges in life then they'll end up socially isolated, out of work and unable to form adult relationships. This isn't rocket science - it's the fundamental basis of education and parenting. These children are being repeatedly failed by too many adults.

Well said @MrsOvertonsWindow

And there will be a hell of a lot more girls who don't want to do PE during their periods, for actual physical reasons.

The whataboutery is strong.

Sex matters are right. Sex matters for safeguarding, taking a child out of that framework on their say so is dangerous, even if the parents agree.

Frankly telling a child that changing with their sex is a problem, which you do if you immediately give them an alternative is also dangerous and setting them up to fail. Every child would prefer their own personal changing room, plenty for a lot more concrete reasons than confusion about gender. That's not how schools work.

It's a bit much that this suggested 'adjustment' (which won't truly benefit those it's proposed for) is in guidance when schools are riddled with toilets that carry a very high risk of permanent harm or death because of lack of gaps for children with epilepsy and a raft of other medical conditions.

What about using those school staff that would have to accompany any 'third option' to actually support the many more children who have physical conditions putting them at serious risk where there are floor to ceiling doors?

Or do those kids not matter? That's the subtext because there simply isn't the money to do everything.

Schools do make reasonable adjustments for children in all sorts of circumstances, so to immediately shut down the option of a third space for a child distressed about their gender as absolutely unworkable would be odd.

I know. Anyone familiar with old school buildings will know of numerous single use toilets dotted round the place. The idea that certain children should be compelled to undress there, raises so many questions about safety, privacy security and of course hygiene.

The problem is that these unhappy children have been told that their rights are the priority and that the school "norms" don't apply to them. The damage that's been done by allowing transactivists to influence the curriculum, SRE / Health Ed & pastoral systems is immense.
The DfE have finally recognised this and started to roll this back but these people are powerful and used to issuing threats and getting what they want. The process of saying no is difficult, especially as we need to support these vulnerable children along the way. They're the victims in all this.

Having gaps in toilet doors isn't a safe utopia either though. There are no risk-free options when it comes to school toilets, it's a case of choose your poison.

If a pupil is so distressed by changing in the facilities and playing in groups of their sex, then therapy is needed isn’t it? Are you suggesting just because a pupil is distressed at changing with other members of their sex, other pupils should be made uncomfortable by having a pupil of the opposite sex change with them, or the student should be given separate changing facilities? The second is acceptable, the first is not.

There is a clear prohibition against the first so why would I be suggesting it?

We agree that separate changing facilities are acceptable, others on here do not.

Children confused about what sex they are don't need shuffling off to a random toilet used by adults somewhere else in the school building. Not even when accompanied by an adult removed from their core role of working with other children, having to stand outside said toilet twice in a lesson. In addition to the other adult not being late, they have to work out where child will store their clothes / valuables while they're participating in a PE lesson (that they're likely to be late to having changed elsewhere in the school.

I get that these options seem simple to those unfamiliar with schools which is why it's a shame the guidance is not informed by education good practice or school safeguarding. If changing rooms are unsafe - and they can be areas that some children when asked will identify as areas of potential bullying - then the school must address that as it's unacceptable. You don't resolve that by hiving off children who feel unsafe - you eradicate the bullying..

Sorry for the tedious details but for those who don't work in schools, it's important to understand how they actually work. So many of these demands are unworkable and aren't in the interests of children or schools - just based on adult transactivist fantasies.

I get that these options seem simple to those unfamiliar with schools

I literally work in a school where a third space is offered and it's not a random adult toilet miles away from anywhere that needs supervising by a bored teacher so the insistence that it has to be is rather baffling.

That's one school. I can name countless schools in a number of LAs that would struggle to offer a safe alternative space to change. You can't promote national guidance on the basis of one school. 😀

Edited to add I'd be horrified to see any school using an expensive teacher to supervise. They'd likely take a TA away from their alloted time with a child / class and use them.

But equally you can't claim that it's simply impossible and shut down any conversation about the possibility of it happening.

If it is possible, do you support it as a reasonable adjustment?

But what if there was more than one pupil in a class needing this adjustment? How many separate changing places should a school make available? Where would the pupil store their belongings?

I mean, I don't think mine is the only school that it works for.

Schools have been dealing with the stuff for years and not all of them have let boys change with the girls.

And now none will let boys change with the girls, or vice versa.

I've never claimed it's impossible. I've stated that the suggestion is shot through with problems and you don't issue national guidance schools that's a potential safeguarding hazard, interferes with a child's curriculum entitlement, can make them repeatedly late to a lesson, requires expensive adult supervision that will negatively impact on other children.

A school may have a space that can be safely used by a single child without encountering any of the potential hazards that schools MUST take into account when children are unsupervised in the building. If you've worked at a senior level or been a DSL then you should be familiar with the school's responsibility for every child's safety all day long and how schools ensure this.

These poor girls (or boys) being gaslit by extreme transactivists that their bodies are so wrong that they no longer have a place in the appropriate changing room. The levels of introversion are off the scale and deeply unhealthy for children and adolescents.