Gender Questioning Children Guidance
The big news in the Education world this week is that the government has published an updated draft of Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges. And this version includes long-awaited guidance relating to “gender questioning” children — something ACT has been pressing the government for over many years. Schools were first promised this guidance in 2018, yet repeated delays, internal disagreements and a change of government meant schools were left waiting for almost eight years.
Christian teachers have often found themselves on the sharp end of this issue, particularly when raising safeguarding concerns or questioning pressures to affirm falsehoods. Being expected to accept that boys are girls and vice versa within the school environment just does not sit right within a Biblical understanding (or indeed scientific) of the issues of sex, gender and personhood.
I’d begun to think we might be waiting indefinitely — that the government had slipped into a perennial pattern of delay, seeking to avoid the inevitable outcry and pushback from backbenchers, activists (of all political persuasions) and parents alike.
So can we breathe a sigh of relief? What are the main takeaways?
In essence, the guidance provides some reassurance, but much obfuscation.
A number of wins
1. Safeguarding first
This guidance is introduced within the statutory safeguarding guidance. And this is a safeguarding issue, no doubt about it. For Christian teachers, this reinforces that decisions must be rooted in children’s welfare and legal duties, not cultural or ideological pressure. We know that Jesus reserves his strongest condemnation for those who lead children astray and this placement indeed affirms our duty to protect the most vulnerable. “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck”. Matthew 18:6
2. Clear ‘red lines’ on single sex facilities
I am thankful that the guidance states unequivocally that schools must record and refer to each child’s sex.and that pupils must not use opposite-sex toilets, changing rooms, boarding accommodation or residential dormitories. Where sports are single-sex for safety reasons, there must be no exceptions.
We can give thanks that schools now have statutory backing for maintaining sex-based boundaries. While it may seem a small victory to some Christians (or anyone with common sense), it goes a long way toward protecting girls’ dignity and ensuring boys cannot unfairly compete in girls’ events or break girls’ records. We give thanks that this guidance will help prevent these obvious injustices and safeguard both safety and fairness in schools.
3. The need to involve parents
The guidance rightly emphasises involving parents in decisions about social transition, reflecting the Biblical principle of the God-given role of parents in guiding and caring for their children. But this good principle is undermined by a troubling loophole which allows schools to keep parents out of the loop if involving them is judged a “greater risk” to the child.
Where the guidance is lacking
1. Schools can still transition pupils-even at primary level
The guidance does indicate that full social transition in primary schools should be very rare and they “should exercise particular caution”
It advises schools to develop a clear policy for handling requests to socially transition, taking a careful approach, and always prioritising the child’s best interests — which “may not align with the child’s wishes”.
However, without objective criteria, schools may face pressure from parents and pupils to allow transitions. Every child will be ‘exceptional’ or the ‘rare child’ who will benefit from social transition in the school where leaders or parents feel under pressure or at a loss at how else to proceed.
This should cause every Christian to lament. It can never be in the best interest of the child to reject their sex, or to permit children as young as four to ‘transition’. What they need instead is the firm, loving guidance of parents and the support of qualified therapists to help them navigate mental health challenges and other struggles
2. A heavy burden for headteachers
Although the guidance states that schools should “always consider” any clinical advice families have received, there are no limits on what clinicians may recommend-. The ultimate safeguarding responsibility rests entirely with headteachers. They are expected to decide what is in the “best interests of the child and other children,”. Schools are effectively being asked to act as psychologists, medical professionals, social workers, and therapists, assessing which pupils can or cannot undergo social transition. This is a heavy burden.
An ongoing mess
In the absence of clear guidance over the past eight years, school leaders have been left fumbling in the dark, drafting policies based on inconsistent or flawed advice, or navigating complex situations on a case-by-case basis. Trust between schools and families has frayed as sharply conflicting worldviews have collided. In some cases, there have been serious professional consequences, particularly for Christian teachers, including disciplinary action and even dismissal for questioning an explicitly affirmative approach . The new draft guidance represents a small step in recognising the rights of staff and pupils who do not wish to use preferred pronouns, suggesting that schools could explore alternatives, such as allowing teachers and pupils to use names instead of pronouns, to respect individual beliefs. However, the cautious language — “could” rather than “must” — once again leaves uncertainty and inconsistency in how this might be applied.
My grave concern is that this guidance will only deepen the burden on schools, setting no explicit limits on what clinicians may recommend, relying on the opaque benchmark of the “best interests of the child and other children,” and using terms such as “welfare,” “exceptional,” and “very rarely” without a clear frame of reference. Without greater precision, schools may continue to face one of the most complex safeguarding issues of our time with insufficient guidance or clarity.
And of even more importance is the concern we must have for the vulnerable children who have been at the mercy of adults imposing their own ideologies. The majority of the toll is borne by them- the most defenseless participants in this discussion. Distressed children, grappling with the very real distress of gender dysphoria, have been crying out for reliable help from trusted adults amid their confusion and have been met with a plethora of fudged responses from schools.
We must pray that Christians do not naively accept the small ‘wins’ of this guidance at the expense of truth and ultimately the wellbeing of many children. May they have the warning of Jesus ringing loudly in their ears as they respond to the government’s invitation for feedback.
The consultation on this guidance is open for 10 weeks.