But what law? They couldn’t really say. There were some vague words about HR, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and local-authority training. I simply couldn’t believe what I was being told – that a special school, with all its experience, was ready to overlook the safety and dignity of these very disabled girls.

The school eventually consulted a lawyer, who confirmed that the Equality Act required it to restore same-sex intimate care for female students. However, this was only to be on the basis of “parental preference”. I continued to be made feel that wanting same-sex intimate care was in some way outdated or unreasonable.

There are hundreds of thousands of girls like my daughter in England in special schools, supported living and nursing homes –  girls and women who are unable to talk about what happens to them, and unable to tell anyone if they have been flashed, groped, or raped. Sex-based rights are central to keeping them safe and I am at a loss to explain how commissioners and service providers have lost sight of this, and of these girls’ dignity and worth.

The post H, mother of a severely disabled girl appeared first on Sex Matters.

I appealed the decision unsuccessfully and later that year I started legal action on the grounds of discrimination against my protected “gender critical” belief. In the meantime my suspension continued – even during lockdown, when meetings moved online, I was unable to attend Zoom meetings with my daughter so that she could join Rainbows. 

During my legal battle, I discovered that Girlguiding wouldn’t even commit to telling parents that there might be a boy or man in their daughter’s unit. It claimed that collecting data on sex was “sensitive”.

In 2022, I settled my case with Girlguiding, by which time the charity had spent a six-figure sum on fighting to keep admitting boys into what is supposed to be a girl-only organisation. As well as paying my costs, it promised that gender-critical leaders were welcome in Guiding. But by this time I had had enough. My daughter is now happy in Brownies and plans to move on to Scouts when she is old enough. I feel vindicated by Girlguiding’s recent decision to stop admitting boys as Guides and men as leaders, and to require any who have already joined to leave by September.

The post Katie Alcock, former Girlguiding leader appeared first on Sex Matters.

To get our podcast in your inbox every week, sign up for the Friday memo.

The post Boys told to leave Girlguiding appeared first on Sex Matters.

This will be welcomed by school leaders, who have been struggling without official guidance. 

KCSIE sets out the legal duties of schools and colleges in England to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under 18. This latest version will be finalised and come into operation in September 2026 following a consultation. 

Sex Matters welcomes the integration of this guidance into the statutory safeguarding framework. CEO Maya Forstater said:

“We welcome the news that the long-awaited guidance for schools on ‘gender-questioning children’ has been integrated into the statutory safeguarding framework. This is the right way to think about how to ensure the safeguarding and wellbeing of all children and young people in school. 

“Putting this guidance into the statutory framework makes clear that schools have the same legal duties towards all children, and it ensures that the guidance can be updated. 

“The guidance gives non-negotiable red lines for every school and every child: schools must know, record and be able to refer to each child’s sex, and must not allow any child to use opposite-sex toilets, changing rooms or dormitories on school trips. 

“However, schools are still being left with the dangerous idea that they can facilitate ‘social transition’ – which remains undefined – and that they should negotiate this on a case-by-case basis. 

“It should be clear by now that allowing children and parents to think that a child who starts their education recognised as being a girl can somehow graduate ‘as a boy’ or vice versa is a dangerous fairy tale that gives children unrealistic expectations that simply cannot be fulfilled.”

What does the guidance say?

The guidance says that schools should consider developing a policy on what to do when children request to socially transition, and should take a careful approach:

“Schools and colleges should consider whether pupils would be best supported by a policy on social transition which explains the steps that a school or college will go through when a child requests support. When considering any request for support with social transition, schools and colleges should ensure that their decision-making process is documented and records are kept.”

It also says that schools should always recognise that children’s best interests are paramount, and that this is not always the same as what the child wants:

“This means that 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.”

The recommendation to adopt a clear policy is welcome and in line with the model policy approach proposed by Sex Matters. 

However, the guidance does not say what it means by the phrase “socially transition”. Sex Matters’ recommendation is that schools have clear policies on sex-based rules and record-keeping and that they should respond to children experiencing mental distress not with a “social transition” plan but with education and care plans which aim to ensure the child can continue to access education.

The guidance draws some bright lines, categorically ruling out many of the things a child seeking to “socially transition” might want: 

“Schools must not allow pupils into toilets, changing rooms, or boarding or residential accommodation designated for the opposite sex, with no exceptions. Similarly, where schools have implemented single-sex sports as being necessary for safety reasons, there should be no exceptions and pupils must not be allowed to participate in sports designated for the opposite sex.”

But it leaves the question of what it means by “social transition” vague and open to negotiation. It also anticipates that some children may attend school “in stealth”, with teachers and other pupils believing them to be the opposite sex. This is not consistent with safeguarding these children or their peers. 

Schools are being told that they should “always consider any clinical advice the family has received”, but the Department for Education has set no limits for clinicians or the NHS in this regard. It has failed to explain to them that children cannot expect to be treated as the opposite sex within a school setting. Dr Hilary Cass’s expert review focused on clinical decision-making, and did not consider decision-making by schools, or other children’s rights and welfare, and the government is pushing ahead with putting a new cohort of children on puberty blockers in the name of medical research.  

It is alarming that once again schools are being encouraged to take a “doctor knows best” approach, when doctors and medical researchers have been encouraging children and families to have unrealistic expectations of what can safely,  reasonably and lawfully be accommodated by schools. 

The KCSIE guidance consultation is open for 10 weeks and Sex Matters will be responding. 

The post Guidance released on “gender-questioning” children  appeared first on Sex Matters.

“To promote the education of girls and young women to help them develop emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually so they can make a positive contribution to their community and the wider world.”

Over 300,000 women and girls are currently involved in Girlguiding and many credit it as a formative experience in their life. 

It is and always was an organisation for girls. 

Staff and volunteer positions are open to men, but only girls can become young members, and only women can become Guide leaders. The organisation’s operational policies also take into account the particular needs of girls. For example its policy on first aid on residential trips says: 

“If the first aider is a man, a woman must be present when a member is being treated. A woman should deal with girls’ personal hygiene queries and needs.”

Diverting from its charitable objects

But in 2017, without consultation and without applying to the Charity Commission to change its charter, the board adopted an “equality and diversity” policy that permitted boys and men to join the association as if they were girls or women.

It required that such “trans girls” and “trans women” should be admitted without having their sex disclosed and should be allowed to use sleeping, washing and toilet facilities alongside girls or women – and that girls’ parents were not to be told about these arrangements. 

Girlguiding’s policy said: 

“To help us be as inclusive as possible, Girlguiding’s definition of girl and woman includes those who are biologically female (however they identify) and those whose gender is a girl or a woman (trans girls and trans women)” . 

This falls into precisely the same error as the Scottish Government’s definition of women for the purpose of counting women on public boards, which was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland. 

Guide leaders who complained or disagreed with the policy were disciplined. This is what happened to Guide leaders Katie Alcock and Helen Watts in 2018. They were investigated by Girlguiding, which judged that their “unwillingness to clearly commit to follow all of the Girlguiding Code of Conduct” was incompatible with continued membership. And in 2021 a teacher and mother of three was questioned under caution by Merseyside Police after sending a letter to Girlguiding UK raising safeguarding concerns about a male dominatrix who had been accepted as a Guide leader. 

Single-sex charities and the law

Girlguiding’s board of trustees, like those of other charities, is responsible for ensuring that the charity acts in pursuit of its charitable objects, and that it complies with other laws.. 

Under the Equality Act it would be unlawful sex discrimination to provide a service or run an association that is just for one sex without an express exception. There are specific exceptions for associations (at schedule 16) and charities (at section 193) that allow them to limit their membership and benefits to people who share a protected characteristic. 

As the Charity Commission says in its guidance on the law for charities, limiting benefits to people who share a protected characteristic is lawful if:

• the charity’s governing document only allows people who share a protected characteristic to benefit, and
• the restriction can be justified based either on the charity’s aim to tackle a particular disadvantage faced by people who share a protected characteristic or achievement of a legitimate aim. 

The Charity Commission says: 

“The commission expects trustees to run their charity in accordance with the legal obligations that are relevant in their circumstances. This includes taking immediate steps to prevent illegal discrimination from continuing.”

The law is clear

On 16th April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers (“FWS”) that the terms “sex”, “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”) refer to biological sex and that a person’s sex for these purposes is not modified by possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA 2004”).

Although the FWS judgment only relates to GRC holders, who must be over 18, it made clear that the “gateway conditions” for using the single-sex exceptions are based on biological sex. 

On associations and charities (at paragraph 231) it said:

“Schedule 16 [on associations] and section 193(1) [on charities] plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast-feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above).” 

This seems to have finally prompted Girlguiding to review its policy and realise that it must comply with the law. Its statement said: 

“Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. The Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.”

The action also appears to have been prompted by a legal letter sent in November by a mother of a seven-year-old girl (“Z”) who wanted to join the Guides. The letter set out the relevant legal provisions and said that the mother and daughter would bring a claim or direct or indirect discrimination and harassment against the charity if it did not resolve her concerns and return the charity to its objects of being for girls. 

As the letter sets out, Girlguiding relies on the charity exception in order to provide its educational programme for girls. This is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and is set out in its charitable instrument. However, Girlguiding’s equality and diversity policy was legally inconsistent with this or any other of the Equality Act’s single-sex exceptions.

The legal letter explains that Girlguiding’s policy for deciding who to admit to membership and benefit from its services resulted in direct and indirect discrimination and harassment against Z:

• Unlawful direct discrimination by separating her from boys. Not allowing girls to mix with boys is itself sex discrimination. It is only lawful if a single-sex exception is used. Those exceptions must be applied to allow a sex-based rule.
• Direct discrimination by offering a service that is inadequate for her needs. By putting Z at risk of having a boy in her Rainbow, Brownie, Guide or Ranger group, Girlguiding was subjecting Z to less favourable treatment related to sex (since Z and her parents had chosen Guides as a single-sex organisation). 
• Indirect discrimination. The policy of allowing boys and men to self-identify into the organisation puts girls at a substantial disadvantage compared with boys, as they are at greater risk of their privacy, dignity or safety being compromised compared with a boy or man. 
• Harassment. The policy constitutes and encourages unwanted conduct which violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for girls. This includes, but is not limited to: sharing toilets, showers or changing facilities with boys, contact sports with boys and sharing accommodation with boys, all without girls’ prior knowledge or consent. 

The policy also results in unlawful discrimination towards boys by refusing membership to a (non-trans) boy.

Why did Girlguiding flout the law?

It should be obvious that transsexual men and gender-distressed boys are not part of the group Girlguiding was set up to serve.

Guide leaders are not qualified to offer therapeutic role-play to boys with gender confusion. Girls attending Brownies and Guides should not be required to provide immersive role-play to these boys or to cross-dressing men. This does not benefit their emotional and spiritual development. Many parents object.

Girlguiding adopted its policy after consulting with Gendered Intelligence. As shown in this tweet featuring trainer Jezza Donnovan, Gendered Intelligence shared the usual suicide scare statistics (read our factsheet on why these are irresponsible myths). 

Stonewall also lobbied hard for women’s charities of all kinds to accept men as if they were women, promoting the idea that men should be allowed to self-identity into women’s refuges and rape-crisis centres as well as Guiding. 

It told charity leaders:

“Under the [Equality] Act, trans people have the right to access single-sex services in line with their ‘acquired gender’, and they are not required to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, or have undergone any form of medical intervention, to be eligible for support in these services”

In 2018 Fair Play For Women raised the issue about Girlguiding’s policy being unlawful and undermining safeguarding. Then the chief executive of Girlguiding, Julie Bentley, made a statement in response. She said:

“We’ve been asked why we don’t simply use exemptions under the law. We continue to review our policies against emerging guidance from organisations like the Equality and Human Rights Commission and, like other organisations working with children and young people, we welcome all guidance that helps us navigate this complex area. However, as a girl-only organisation Girlguiding does not have the right to exclude trans young people from guiding and nor would we wish to.“

This was wrong in law. Girlguiding had the right to exclude boys (whether they identified as transgender or not) and no legal basis for including them. By including boys as if they were girls it was not following its objects, and was undermining safeguarding. 

Girlguiding also had bad advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, led at the time by ex-Stonewall chair David Isaac with senior staff Melanie Field (who rejects the Supreme Court judgment), Clare Collier (now Rev Grey Collier, pronouns he/him, who went on to be a trustee of Mermaids and part of the Trans Solidarity Alliance), and Elizabeth Procashka (chair of the charity Birthrights which cancelled Milli Hill for saying “women” and not “birthing people”). 

Where is the Charity Commission?

The Charity Commission did nothing to stop Girlguiding and other women’s charities redefining the terms “women” and “girls” to include men and boys.

A spokesperson for the Charity Commission has now told the magazine Civil Society that it will only become involved in matters of equality law if a breach of another regulator’s rules indicates a wider failure of governance.

The practice of single sex-charities diverting from their objects is a failure of governance that is widespread across the sector.

Penny Wilson, an “inclusive charity governance consultant” and former CEO at Getting On Board, is typical of many leaders in the voluntary sector. She has written to the regulator imploring it not to take regulatory action against single-sex charities which divert from their objects, but to enable them, in the name of inclusion.

Girlguiding’s communication to its volunteers suggests that members could feel upset or neutral about its shift back to serving girls, not that they might support it. It has also written to them launching a taskforce “to explore new opportunities for trans girls, trans young women and trans women”. As a charity for girls and young women it has no business launching a taskforce for transsexual and cross-dressing men or gender-distressed boys.

The Charity Commission has said it plans to update its Equality Act guidance for charities after the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance is published. But there is no reason to wait. What it should be doing is making clear that charities must pursue their stated objects.

Girlguiding trustees, staff members or volunteers who don’t support its mission “to promote the education of girls and young women” should find another organisation to join, not be allowed to subvert this one in order to serve the wishes of a different group.

What you can do

If you are a Guide, parent, ex-member or supporter, write to Girlguiding using the form on its website.

The post Will Girlguiding follow the law?  appeared first on Sex Matters.

How to use it

1. Use the text below, or edit the same text in a Google doc (click Use template at top right) or Word document.
2. Copy and paste into an email, with the optional sections to suit your own situation.
3. Replace the placeholder text in [square brackets].

Write the email

Send your email to the contact given for the programme you are questioning. Usually that is on the promotional materials for the programme. You may want to include the head of the organisation, the chief executive or managing director, or the vice chancellor if it’s a university. 

Copy your email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

• regulatory.request@equalityhumanrights.com (for England and Wales)
• legalrequestscotland@equalityhumanrights.com (for Scotland)

– and copy in TellUs@sex-matters.org to let us know too.

Add this if the organisation is a public body or authority (such as a local council)

Now continue…

Now sign and send it.

Feedback

Tell us about your complaint, whether you succeed or hit a brick wall. We will treat it in confidence and will not share anything publicly without your consent.

It’s useful for us to track how organisations are responding to the Supreme Court’s clarification of the law, and to have an idea of compliance and non-compliance by sector.

The post Template email about positive action based on self-ID instead of sex appeared first on Sex Matters.

The Supreme Court’s judgment relates only to people with gender-recognition certificates (GRCs), who must be adults. But the Supreme Court confirmed what should have been obvious all along. Neither a certificate nor a strong wish to be the opposite sex or personal steps such as changing name, clothing or hairstyle, taking hormones or having cosmetic surgery can change a person’s sex. 

Children who are distressed about their sex should be protected from harm and from bullying. But if a child, their parents (or even their doctor) asks if the school can allow a child to use opposite-sex facilities and refer to them and treat them as if they were the opposite sex, the answer should always have been No. 

School leaders, teachers and school staff need to know, record and use information on every child’s sex. They cannot safely pretend that some children have changed sex. 

Policies adopted by local authorities such as Brighton and Hove City Council that are based on the idea that schools must try to avoid “outing” a child’s sex are unworkable and unlawful, and put children at risk. 

Our model policy enables a school to set out clearly why it needs to record and refer to each child’s sex, and then to say confidently:

As a school we follow the Equality Act 2010 , as clarified by the Supreme Court in 2025 and have also taken notice of the findings of the Cass Review. We welcome all children and young people, and we seek to provide an inclusive environment. We aim to act safely, effectively and compassionately to support all pupils to access education, pursue their interests, use the school facilities and participate in the life of the school.

As set out in this policy, we cannot safely or legally record or refer to a child as anything other than the sex that they are. The school cannot admit a child as if they were the opposite sex, agree to treat their sex as confidential or misrepresent their sex verbally or in writing. This would be incompatible with our legal obligations, behaviour policy and safeguarding, and would undermine the smooth running of the school and its ability to provide fair and safe access to education to all our pupils.

Official guidance for schools in England is expected from the Department for Education before pupils return in September. It should direct schools that they are not to pretend that people can change sex, because they are not keeping children safe if they do so. 

We have sent our updated model policy to the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP.

Download our updated model policy:

The post Model policy for schools: updated appeared first on Sex Matters.

The post Sex-based rules and record-keeping – a whole-school model policy appeared first on Sex Matters.