The new sex education guidance will fail

There are big problems - but this won’t fix them

There has been a long wait for the new statutory guidance on sex education.

A draft was consulted on before the election, yet a year has passed since.

A heavily-altered version was finally published on Monday.

Was it worth the long wait?

No. It’s a massive missed opportunity. I have written before about how sex education in schools has gone wrong, and the problems this is causing.

The new watered-down guidance means primary school children will continue to be exposed to totally inappropriate material. Too many schools will continue to teach kids terrible ideas – like the idea they are “trapped in the wrong body”, with terrible consequences for mental health and ever-rising gender dysphoria.

Bright spots?

Let me search for some good in it. Not everything is bad about the new guidance. I think warning kids against pathetic toxic influencers like Andrew Tate is good.

There is even a nod in the direction of greater transparency. But like so much in the guidance it falls short. It says schools “should” make materials available to parents. Surely there should be a legal right with no exceptions here? And one which allows parents to circulate the material so they can actually discuss it with others?

Labour voted down the creation of such a transparency right when we tried to insert it into the Schools Bill in the Commons – in fact, a Labour MP warned that parents might be angry if they saw the material. We will put this amendment again in the Lords - and it will be interesting to see if there has been a real change of heart.

Clare Page, a London mum who has waged a years-long legal battle for transparency in this area, is still awaiting the result of a tribunal on the issue. The verdict has been subject to an unprecedented, unexplained 10 month-long delay. She notes that some providers allow parents to “view” materials - but not circulate or discuss them with other parents. She notes that the new guidance at best supports “view only access to materials”. She says “I don’t like it one bit”.

Scrapped: proposed ban on sex education for children under nine

OK, that’s the good bit. The bad bits are really bad.

There has been widespread coverage of the way Labour have changed the previous draft guidance which was ready before the election.

When the consultation first launched, the previous Conservative government proposed setting age limits on “sensitive topics”.

This was much needed – as I noted in a previous piece, we have seen activist educators pushing discussion of masturbation at kids aged eight and nine. Leaflets handed out at primary schools by the charity Swindon and Wiltshire Pride teach children that there are 300 different LGBT pride flags, including the “polyamory Pride flag”, flags for people who are “trigender” or “omnisexual”, and “lesser known identities across the fetish spectrum.” This should not be in primary schools.

The original draft would have made sure kids are not taught sex education “earlier than Year 5” (that’s children aged nine and ten). I regard this as a minimal step to reform, given the radical agenda of the activists who now shape too much sex education.

But in the response, issued yesterday the DfE said even that is being junked: “following careful consideration of the responses to this consultation on flexibility and age limits, the department has decided not to introduce age limits on certain topics in the RSHE statutory guidance”.

So small children will continue to be exposed to totally inappropriate material at really young ages.

Labour ministers say this is needed because children see terrible things online at young ages. But they voted against our amendment to get phones out of schools and also voted against our amendment to get under 16s off social media and raise the digital age of consent. Instead of fixing the problems, they are using them to justify a choice that will create more problems.

Gender ideology indoctrination in schools will continue

The previous government draft guidance simply said clearly: "Schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity," and "If asked about the topic of gender identity, schools should teach the facts about biological sex."

The previous draft guidance said schools should "not use any materials that present contested views as fact, including the view that gender is a spectrum. Material suggesting that someone’s gender is determined by their interests or clothing choices should not be used as it risks leading pupils who do not comply with sex stereotypes to question their gender when they might not have done so otherwise."

Why did it say this?

As I wrote before, some schools are promoting really bad ideas from gender ideology and children are being prompted from increasingly early ages with the unscientific idea that they have some sort of metaphysical “gender identity”, and may have been “trapped in the wrong body”.

Children being prompted with this idea in an official way in schools is one reason we have seen gender dysphoria diagnoses among children exploding.

In 2009 the NHS’s gender identity development service (Gids) saw fewer than 50 children a year. By 2021-22 it was more than 5,000. The number of children in England with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a GP rose fiftyfold over 10 years, between 2011 and 2021. According to one study, around 5% were given puberty blockers and around 8% were prescribed masculinising/feminising hormones.

Autistic and gay kids have been particularly likely to be pushed towards life-changing medical treatment and surgery. We adults have created a problem for young people where before, there was none.

And what is the government’s new response to this? A watery fudge which will change very little.

Instead of simply saying gender identity should not be taught, the revised guidance says that schools should not say everyone has a gender identity.

In practice this will lead to minimal change.

As long as schools can say there is some degree of “on the one hand, on the other”, in their lessons they will continue to push the same books and materials they use now. Too much of this is essentially celebratory, and makes kids feel that if they want to be special they should pick a gender identity from the ever-growing menu of brightly coloured flags. There’s nothing here that would make a school rethink any of the (very unhelpful) books they are currently offering students. The new guidance says:

Pupils should also be taught to recognise that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as with the other protected characteristics, have protection from discrimination and should be treated with respect and dignity.

In teaching this, schools should be mindful that beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate, and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact. For example, they should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity. Schools should avoid language and activities which repeat or enforce gender stereotypes. Schools should be mindful to avoid any suggestion that social transition is a simple solution to feelings of distress or discomfort.

While welcoming the language on gender stereotypes (as I do) the rights charity Sex Matters note:

“But it’s a big shame that the DfE has watered down sections of the draft guidance it inherited from the previous government which sought to counter the trans activist positions adopted by many schools over the past decade. It still says, correctly, that ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’ are separate characteristics that confer different legal rights. But instead of warning schools not to “teach about the broader concept of gender identity”, it now says that “pupils should not be taught that everyone has a gender identity”. The difference is subtle but important. The guidance now suggests a false balance between sense and nonsense. The two sexes are factual and important, ‘gender identity’ is a fringe belief that doesn’t belong in the curriculum.

As Transgender Trend note of the new guidance:

“Overall: it waters down key safeguards in the draft guidance… The attempt to be neutral and 'both sides' this issue fails children. It does say "For example, they should not teach as fact that all people have a gender identity." But some people do and those people are 'trans' and we must be kind? A great loophole for activist teachers.

They also note with surprise that “the facts about biological sex” and ideas about gender identity are being treated as equivalent in the new guidance.

There is a big question here about what we normalise at what age. In the 1990s children were not prompted to think about gender reassignment - an extremely niche thing then.

Under this guidance they will be told about it: at all stages of education. Indeed, that it is a protected charactristic. But just because something is in the Equality Act 2010 does not mean it has to be taught about in primary schools. And there is nothing in this guidance which will change the current culture in which trans and other QIA+ identities are effectively promoted in some schools.

Safeguarding

The new guidance has a couple of paragraphs on safeguarding. But it is thin and doesn’t address the key issues, like, are the people and materials we are using a gateway into risks?

Extreme example first. Here is Pride in Surrey founder Stephen Ireland making the case for gender education to keep kids safe.

Here is Stephen volunteering to teach how to work on radio shows at a school with a child in fetish gear. He was feted by schools, local media and local councillors.

You will probably know by now that Ireland was recently sentenced to 24 years in prison for raping a 12 year old boy. There had been people trying to raise warnings for years, but the whistleblowers were reported to the local police (who Ireland had a close relationship with) by local Lib Dem councillors.

This is an extreme example, but as part of sex education, other schools are putting children in touch with people and ideas which are risky from a safeguarding point of view.

Highfield School in Matlock held a drag queen workshop. The workshop for 11 year olds is by Matt Charlton, aka drag queen & adult entertainer Amandah Hart. The local women’s rights network argue that drag is both sexist and always previously seen as “adult entertainment”. But as they have pointed out, by being in the school, kids are then likely to look up his name and find adult content e.g. his film about blow jobs.

And there are less obvious examples which apply in many more cases. I mentioned before Collins’ textbook “Your Choice”. It begins:

“If and when you decide that you are ready to have sex”

…With no sense that some ages might be too young to make this “decision”.

It continues by normalising sex for very young children:

“If you are age 13 to 16 you have the same rights as an adult to obtain free and confidential advice from a doctor, nurse or pharmacist. They will recommend the best method for you and can supply contraceptives without telling your parents.”

And says:

“Sex can happen between two people who don’t have a long term relationship… It can occur between two people who are friends or two people who have only just met.”

Educating 13 year olds to think in this way - that you are an adult at 13, and that sex is not for relationships - is a huge safeguarding risk, which the new guidance does nothing about.

Impartiality

Schools are in theory under strong legal requirements to be politically impartial, something set out in sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996.

This is not enforced often enough, including in sex education. For example, I mentioned Sackville school in Sussex, telling children they “will” make personal pledges on diversity and inclusion, and should bring in a donation to Stonewall, now a highly contentious group which some of its own founders think has “lost its way” on trans issues.

Yet the guidance has nothing to say about sticking to the law or an impartial approach.

Gender questioning children guidance - where is it?

In December 2023, the last government published draft guidance on gender questioning children. It then consulted on this, and the document was ready to go.

But the new government paused it, and a year later, schools are still waiting. The Supreme Court verdict came and went months ago, but it has still not appeared, so that’s no excuse either.

I had assumed it would appear alongside the new sex education guidance, given the obvious overlaps, but no, the wait goes on.

The guidance covered issues like changing names, pronouns, single sex spaces, and so on.

I do feel for school leaders trying to navigate these issues with no steer from the government.

Conclusion

Having waited a year for this guidance, which was ready to go, the result is a huge missed opportunity.

Not everything in it is bad, but it won’t change the prevailing culture in sex education much.

And in too many schools that culture is serving up bad, damaging ideas. Inappropriate stuff for small kids with too little focus on safeguarding. Sadly, the long wait wasn’t worth it, and on one of the most contentious topics - gender questioning children - we are still waiting.