When child safeguarding meets gender ideology in sport, children are the losers

An organisation meant to protect children has built gender-identity ideology into its policies, putting children at risk.

There is an intrinsic conflict between treating people as the opposite sex to what they are in reality, and protecting children and vulnerable adults. Indeed, there is a conflict between this and protecting everyone’s privacy, dignity and safety. You’d expect this conflict to be recognised by the Child Protection in Sport Unit run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). 

The Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) was set up in 2001 in response to a series of child-abuse scandals. Its stated purpose is: 

“to help improve safeguarding and child protection practices within sport organisations, to ensure all children and young people are safe while participating in sport and physical activity at all levels.”

It is part of the NSPCC and is funded by Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Wales, UK Sport and the Football Association. 

Sex matters in safeguarding

A CPSU briefing document dated May 2022 called Safe use of changing facilities and toilets seeks to support clubs and organisations to develop a safe-use policy for changing facilities. It recognises the risk inherent in situations where children are removing their clothes in a space shared with adults, and the need to protect children’s privacy. But it uses the word “gender” where it means sex. For example: 

“It’s considered good practice to ensure that children are supervised by staff or volunteers of the same gender while changing.”

This leads it into confusion and ignoring risks. The NSPCC is the only UK children’s charity with statutory powers, meaning that its staff have “authorised person status” in law, like social workers and police officers, to remove children if they deem them to be at risk of harm.

So the NSPCC has statutory powers. And the CPSU is funded by public money. But its guidance is wrong.

The section headed “Transgender and non-binary children” says:

“Using gendered changing facilities can be a source of stress for transgender and non-binary children. Sport and activity providers should consider how to support these young people to use the changing rooms that they feel comfortable with. Your policies should reflect that decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration all children’s safety.”

This implies that children may choose the facilities provided for the other sex if that matches their claimed gender identity.

The guidance would lead to a boy being allowed to change with girls (and sometimes women) or a girl to change with boys (and sometimes men) in a changing room that is designated “single sex”, and being supervised by staff or volunteers of the opposite sex. 

The wording is drawn from the NSPCC’s 2024 schools briefing Safeguarding considerations for changing rooms. This states that: 

“Mixed gender changing areas are less appropriate as children get older.”

In fact it is mixed-sex changing areas that are less appropriate. There is nothing inappropriate about a girl who identifies as “non-binary” or “transmasc”, or as a “trans boy”, changing with other girls. The NSPCC suggests that schools and sports organisations should consider this a “mixed gender” situation, when in fact it remains single sex. 

Ignoring sex may lead to discrimination

Remembering what sex children are is crucial to safeguarding. Also, telling a gender non-conforming girl that she cannot use the girls’ changing rooms, or a gender non-conforming boy that he cannot use the boys’ changing rooms, would be gender-reassignment discrimination under the Equality Act.

Under the Equality Act, schools and sports associations need to make sure that pupils who have or may be perceived to have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”, or the children of transgender parents, are not singled out for different and less favourable treatment from that given to other pupils. 

They are not required to let such children use opposite-sex facilities. A sound grasp of safeguarding would make clear why this is not appropriate.

The CPSU’s guidance on safeguarding LGBTQ+ children and young people, updated in April 2024, says:

“You should consider how you can support transgender and non-binary children and young people to wear the clothes (e.g uniform or sports kit) and use the toilets and changing rooms that they feel comfortable with. Your policies should reflect that decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all children’s safety.”

There is no way to support a child to use opposite-sex provision without putting either that child or children of the other sex at risk. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on the provision of single-sex and separate-sex services makes clear that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not entitle someone to use opposite-sex facilities. Nowhere does it suggest that people should be supported to use the changing rooms they feel comfortable with or that a case-by-case approach should be taken. On the contrary, it suggests that service providers should tell all users:

“They may use either the toilet for their biological sex or to use the gender neutral toilet if they feel more comfortable doing so.”

Promoting gender confusion

The CPSU offers organisations a list of “key things to remember” that includes:

• promote LGBTQ+ related events and campaigns to demonstrate openly that your club or activity has inclusive values
• do not automatically assume a person’s sexual orientation or gender
• promote LGBTQ+ specialist services to everyone in your sport or activity.

This is on a webpage about protecting children. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not relevant. What is relevant is whether a child is a boy or a girl. Promoting LGBTQ+ related events is not appropriate in children’s sport. Viewed through a safeguarding lens, raising issues of sexual orientation may well be inappropriate.

Ignoring key questions

Both the guidance for sports organisations and the guidance for schools say that where possible, the adults who are supervising children getting changed “should be of the same gender as them”. This should say “the same sex”. 

By using the term “gender”, the guidance avoids the question of whether it is appropriate for adult staff and volunteers who identify as transgender to be treated as the opposite sex for the purpose of supervising changing rooms. 

An assessment based on reality and on safeguarding principles would say they should not. A man who identifies as a woman remains the opposite sex to a group of female students. It is inappropriate to coerce, mislead or force girls who are changing to be supervised by a male teacher and to pretend that he is female. A safeguarding assessment would also need to consider that many men who identify as women are demonstrating a sexual paraphilia. 

Failing to meet its own standards

The CPSU sets out ten standards for safeguarding and protecting children in sport, which it says “provide a framework for all those involved in sport to help them create a safe sporting environment for children and young people and protect them from harm”. 

Five years ago, this analysis of how gender-identity policies in sports were counter to child safeguarding was shared with Sport England. It shows how some national governing bodies of sport have adopted policies which are at odds with the CPSU standards. This remains true in 2024. For example, both the Lawn Tennis Association and the Royal Yachting Association insist that people claiming a transgender identity should have access to the changing rooms of their choice. This is less surprising when you see that the CPSU itself is offering guidance which is not in line with the law.

These policies are headlined as being about safety, but they gloss over key risks by confusing the concepts of sex and “gender”, encouraging children to use opposite-sex facilities, avoiding the question of how to address adults who wish to use or supervise opposite-sex facilities and ignoring the paraphilic aspects of cross-dressing. 

The guidance actively encourages organisations to put children in situations of potential risk and harm, and to undermine record-keeping. This is the opposite of safeguarding. 

As reported in The Telegraph, we have written to the Department for Education urging it to force the NSPCC to alter its stance.

It’s time to make the Equality Act clear

The previous UK government had asked for the public to submit examples of bad guidance on provision of single-sex spaces and services. Sports bodies were among those reported. It is not known whether the new Labour government will take this work forward. 

Sex Matters continues to call for the Equality Act to be made clear, so that the concept of sex is unambiguously recognised in law, and the rights of people with alternative gender identities (with or without a gender-recognition certificate) do not override other people’s privacy, dignity and safety, or the need for clear rules and policies.

Read more about the impact of gender identity in sport and why sex matters.