The draft guidance says:

“Children who are questioning their gender” and “children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual”.

What this means: This implies young people can know their sexual orientation, but cannot know they are trans.

Why is this harmful? Trans people don’t suddenly turn trans at age 18 (although some may realise they are trans at this age or older). Some young people are questioning their gender and others use words like “trans” or “non-binary” to describe themselves. This guidance implies that it is not possible for young people to go beyond “questioning” and therefore that trans young people do not exist. This is not correct.

Not only do trans young people exist, but they have protections under the Equality Act 2010. This law says that as soon as a person says that they plan to transition from one gender to another, they have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”, which is the phrase this law uses to refer to trans (including non-binary) people. The Equality Act does not have a lower age limit so young people can be protected by it. Under The Equality Act, schools and colleges must by law do everything they can to protect trans and non-binary people at their school from discrimination and unfair treatment.

The draft guidance says:

“Schools must not allow children into toilets designated for the opposite biological sex. This includes where schools are responding to a request to support any degree of social transition for children who are questioning their gender.”

What this means: If a trans girl requests to use the girls’ toilets, or a trans boy requests to use the boys’ toilets, the school must say no.

Why is this harmful? The implication here is that trans young people are inherently a risk factor to cis young people – the research does not support this idea. In reality, trans young people often do not feel safe in school toilets. A 2024 survey of LGBTQ+ young people in the UK by the Trevor Project found that 58% of LGBTQ+ students said they avoided bathrooms at school due to a fear of safety. Avoiding using toilets can lead to health issues like an increased risk of urinary tract infections. Trans people in the UK have been able to choose which toilet to use for decades without issue, and removing this choice now makes life harder and increases the fear many trans young people already have around school toilets.

The draft guidance says:

“… if a child does not want to use the toilet designated for their biological sex, schools and colleges should consider whether they can provide an alternative toilet facility, for example self-contained individual toilets, without compromising the provision of single-sex facilities. These alternative arrangements should not compromise the safety, comfort, privacy or dignity of the child, or of other children.”

What this means: If a trans boy does not wish to use the girls’ toilets, or a trans girl does not wish to use the boys’ toilets, schools should consider offering them the use of separate toilets to the rest of their peers instead.

Why is this harmful? The reasons a trans young person may “not want to” use those toilets are more than simply preferences. Many would rather avoid toilets altogether because of fear of using the one they are “designated”. If a trans young person requests to use a third space, such as a gender neutral toilet, then offering it is a great way to ensure they feel safe and comfortable. However, telling them they must use a third space if they haven’t requested it singles them out as “different” and implies they are a danger to others. This advice is incompatible with the suggestion that these alternative arrangements should not compromise the dignity of the child. Schools may also not have enough gender neutral toilets to accommodate both their students with disabilities and trans young people who may now need them.

The draft guidance says:

“When responding to a request to support any degree of social transition this must not include allowing access to changing rooms designated for the opposite sex… If a child does not want to use the changing rooms and showers designated for their sex, schools and colleges should consider whether they can provide an alternative changing or washing facility, but this must not compromise the provision of single-sex facilities. This could be a fully enclosed room – for use by one child at a time that can be secured from the inside – or by allowing access to facilities at an alternative time” 

What this means:  If a trans girl requests to use the girls’ changing room, or a trans boy requests to use the boys’ changing room, the school must say no. If a trans girl does not want to use the boys’ changing room, or a trans boy does not want to use the girls’ changing room, a third option can be provided, or they can use the changing room at a different time to their peers.

Why is this is harmful? Many trans young people prefer to use a space away from their peers to change for their own privacy and safety. Having this option available is a good thing when a young person requests it. But these bans imply a trans young person is a risk to others. If a changing room does not offer a trans young person privacy, then it arguably doesn’t offer any young people enough privacy.

The draft guidance says:

“Responding to a request to support any degree of social transition must not include allowing access to boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex…  If, however, a child does not want to share a room with another child of the same biological sex, alternative arrangements should be sought where possible. Alternative arrangements should not compromise the safety, comfort, privacy or dignity of any child. They might include, for instance, finding a suitable separate room for the child.”

What this means: If, on a school trip, a trans girl requests to sleep in the girls’ accommodation, or a trans boy requests to sleep in the boys’ accommodation, the school must say no. If a trans boy does not wish to share a room with the girls, or a trans girl does not wish to share a room with the boys, schools should consider offering them the use of separate accommodation to the rest of their peers instead.

Why is this harmful? If a trans young person requests to use a third space, such as a single tent, then offering it is a great way to ensure they feel safe and comfortable. However, telling them they must use a third space if they haven’t requested it singles them out as “different” and implies they are a danger to others. This advice is incompatible with the suggestion that these alternative arrangements should not compromise the dignity of the child. We know of trans young people who were able to share accommodation with some close friends which made them feel less alienated.

The draft guidance says:

“The first step when considering a child’s request for support with social transition will be to consider what is in the best interests of the child and other children, and a decision relating to social transition may not be the same as a child’s wishes.”

What this means: Schools get to make the decision whether to allow a trans young person to socially transition in school (such as using a different name and pronouns or wearing a different uniform). If they don’t think it is in the best interests of other young people, they could possibly deny these requests.

Why is this harmful? It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a transition might not be in the best interests of other young people. Learning to refer to someone with a different name is not detrimental to them. If schools allow cis young people to go by different names (or nicknames) then this should be no different for trans young people. If young people can understand their teacher Miss Jones getting married and becoming Mrs Smith, they can get used to using different names and pronouns for a classmate. Denying a request for social transition because other young people might react negatively is treating someone unfairly because of who they are (and their protected characteristic). Denying a request for social transition is not a neutral act, and can negatively impact the wellbeing of the young person making the request.

The draft guidance says:

“… in the vast majority of cases we would expect the school or college to work with parents to determine what is in the best interests of the child…Parents and carers have the leading role in the lives of their children, and this area should be no exception. Therefore, where a child who is questioning their gender asks for support from a school or college, schools and colleges should engage parents/carers as a matter of priority and treat their views with importance.” 

What this means: If a young person tells a member of school staff that they think they might be trans and asks for support, the school should tell the parents. The parents’ views should be treated with importance.

Why is this harmful? Trans, non-binary and questioning young people must be at the heart of their own stories. In an ideal world, we might assume that all parents are supportive of their children. However, in the real world, many young people do not have parents who would accept their child being trans, and some would react violently to that news. School staff have no 100% reliable way of knowing which parents would react in a way that harms their child, as even the young person might not be able to predict this. Young people should be at the heart of decision making, including if and how parents are to be informed. A policy where parents are contacted in the majority of cases regardless of how the young person feels is a policy that puts trans young people at risk of harm.

The draft guidance says:

“… in the rare circumstances where involving parents or carers would constitute a greater risk to the child than not involving them, the school or college should involve their Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) to determine what action is needed to safeguard the child, before the parents are contacted or any decisions are taken.”

What this means: If the school knows that outing a trans young person to their parent will put that young person at risk of harm, then the DSL should be involved to decide what needs to happen to ensure the young person is safe before the parents are contacted.

Why is this harmful? The wording here suggests that even in the cases where outing a young person to their parent is a known safeguarding risk, they should still be contacted, after the DSL has decided how to keep the young person safe when the conversation happens. There is no guidance on what exactly the DSL can do to ensure the safety of the child. If this advice is followed, trans young people will be at risk of harm.

The draft guidance says:

“Primary schools should exercise particular caution, and we would expect support for full social transition to be agreed very rarely.”

What this means: If a parent of a primary school aged young person requests that the school supports their child’s social transition, schools should very rarely allow this.

Why is this harmful? This doesn’t say what they mean by “very rarely” or a “full social transition”. One in a class? One in a school? We would encourage all requests to be considered with the same kindness. Refusal of any social transition requests is an active intervention that may have longer-term impact. This also contradicts the section about treating parents’ views with importance, as parents who are supportive of their child socially transitioning and who feel it is in their best interest to do so are to be told no except in “very rare” circumstances. This implies parents’ views are to be treated with importance if they don’t support transitioning, but not if they do support transitioning. There is bias here.

The draft guidance says:

“The school or college should also make sure that children and their families are aware that while the school or college will appropriately sanction any cases of bullying or harassment, and take a strong stand against bullying, the school or college must also be conscious of the rights of pupils and staff in relation to their religion or belief. However, schools and colleges supporting social transition might consider discussing options with pupils and staff such as using names instead of pronouns.”

What this means: If a student or staff member doesn’t want to use the pronouns that a trans young person uses and says it is for religious reasons, the school should consider letting them avoid using pronouns altogether, using “names” to refer to the trans young person (hopefully their chosen name).

Why is this harmful? Religious students and staff are entitled to their beliefs, and cannot be discriminated against on account of their religion. However, they do not have a right to manifest their beliefs in a way that harms others, including those with other protected characteristics like gender reassignment. Singling trans young people out for different treatment to their peers by refusing to use their pronouns and referring to them only using their name is likely to cause emotional harm and is not treating them with respect and dignity.

The draft guidance says:

“The circumstances of a case and/or the needs of a child may change over time. For example… that a decision has placed an unsustainable pressure on a school or college’s resources.”

What this means: This implies that a school might allow a young person to socially transition, but could change their mind if they can argue they don’t have the resources to support them.

Why is this harmful? Social transition is usually a name change, pronoun change, and possibly uniform change. This should not require any resources on the school’s part.

The draft guidance says:

“Schools should be particularly conscious of safeguarding concerns relating to primary aged children. For example, the Cass Review noted evidence that children who socially transition before puberty – and those who transition prior to receiving clinical advice – are more likely to proceed to a medical pathway than those who do not.”

What this means: This implies that trans people taking a medical pathway is a bad outcome and therefore it is a safeguarding concern if a young person is likely to medically transition when they are older. It also implies that socially transitioning before puberty or receiving clinical advice causes a young person to be more likely to medically transition (and therefore that preventing social transition would prevent future medical transition).

Why is this harmful? A young person of any age entering a medical pathway with medical professionals is not a safeguarding concern. Healthcare for trans people should not be implied to be a bad outcome. Social transition doesn’t cause medical transition, but rather for many trans people social transition will come first and a medical pathway for some follows when they are older.

The draft guidance says:

“The Cass Review emphasised that clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be undertaken by staff without appropriate clinical training.”

What this means: Clinical guidance should be sought when a young person requests to socially transition. Staff who have “appropriate clinical training” should give advice (to who? The young person and their family? The school?) about the risks and benefits of social transition.

Why is this harmful? This does not make clear what is meant by appropriate clinical training, but appears to suggest healthcare professionals should be involved in the decision whether to let a young person socially transition or not. Without extra funding for healthcare staff to do this for every young person who wishes to socially transition, this will create long waiting lists. Young people being on a waiting list is not a neutral act and can cause distress. This also unnecessarily medicalises social transition.

The draft guidance says:

“Accommodating social transition is an active intervention so schools and colleges should take a very careful approach” 

What this means: Allowing a young person to socially transition (change their name, pronouns, and clothes for example) is a decision that will have consequences for them so schools should be careful when making the decision.

Why is this harmful? This does not mention that the same is true for not allowing a young person to socially transition. Refusing to accommodate a social transition is also an active intervention, which could cause emotional harm to the child.

The draft guidance says:

“The Cass Review acknowledges that older children will generally have greater agency to make their own decisions. Maintaining flexibility and keeping children’s options open will help to avoid a child feeling they are under pressure to commit to a potentially irrevocable pathway when they are young.” 

What this means: Keeping options open means young people will be less likely to commit to a pathway that is irreversible.

Why is this harmful? No element of social transition is irrevocable. If a young person changes their name or pronouns, these can be changed again in future. If a young person changes their hair or clothes, these can be changed again. We agree that it is important that children have flexibility and know that making a decision to socially transition in any way is not one they must commit to forever if they decide it isn’t right for them.

The draft guidance says:

“We expect that as well as revisiting decisions at appropriate points, schools and colleges will in particular want to consider whether previous decisions taken prior to this guidance coming into force remain appropriate, taking into account the impact of making any changes on the child in question and considering the principle above about involving parents.”

What this means: If schools have made a decision about allowing a young person to socially transition before this draft guidance comes into force, they may want to reconsider it. For example, if they allowed a young person to socially transition, they may want to consider if allowing that is still appropriate. If the school wants to make changes (such as no longer allowing the young person to socially transition) they should consider the impact of that on the trans young person, and contact the parents.

Why is this harmful? Allowing a young person to socially transition and then saying they must go back to their old name and pronouns is likely to cause emotional harm to that young person.

The draft guidance says:

“Schools and colleges should be particularly conscious of the vulnerabilities of children who have fully socially transitioned from an early age and may be living in stealth (that is, school or college friends/staff may be unaware of their biological sex). The Cass Review emphasised that these children are likely to approach puberty in a fearful and anxious state. Schools and colleges should involve the DSL in these cases.”

What this means: Young people who have socially transitioned but not all staff and their peers know this can be vulnerable. The approach of puberty can make them anxious and afraid. The DSL should be involved in these cases.

Why is this harmful? We agree that puberty approaching can create anxiety and fear for some trans young people, and support should be available if needed. This anxiety may be heightened in young people who are living in stealth. What isn’t considered is how banning trans young people from the single-sex spaces they had previously been using without issue is a big upheaval. For these young people these bans could out them to their peers who will wonder why they are using third spaces when they never had to before. This is likely to be distressing for them. Schools should be safe spaces, not spaces that create fear and anxiety for trans young people.