Our statement on the KCSIE update

We are delighted with the update to Keeping Children Safe In Education (KCSIE) which has made a few significant changes. 

Firstly, the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment are rightly separated and addressed individually. It was always correct to say that “205. A child or young person being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm, however, they can sometimes be targeted by other children. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who are.” We would however suggest that pre-pubertal children do not yet have a sexual orientation and a child calling themselves LGB could be a safeguarding red flag. 

Next, the new guidance mentions the Cass Review, and highlights that “206. However, the Cass review identified that caution is necessary for children questioning their gender as there remain many unknowns about the impact of social transition and children may well have wider vulnerabilities, including having complex mental health and psychosocial needs, and in some cases additional diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” 

We know that there are other relevant vulnerabilities present in this cohort of children, including cared for children, victims of abuse and sexual assault, children who have lost a parent or sibling, and young people who are simply gay and living in this homophobic era of “gender”. These children often also exhibit many of the risk factors described by the PREVENT duty as outlined below.

“Push and pull factors can make a learner at risk of extremism or radicalisation. Often there are several risk factors present that, seen together, can cause concern.

Push factors may include a learner feeling:

isolated

they do not belong

they have no purpose

low self-esteem

their aspirations are unmet

anger or frustration

a sense of injustice

confused about life or the world

real or perceived personal grievances

Pull factors could include an extremist or terrorist group, organisation or individual:

offering a sense of community and a support network

promising fulfilment or excitement

making the learner feel special and part of a wider mission

offering a very narrow, manipulated version of an identity that often supports stereotypical gender norms

offering inaccurate answers or falsehoods to grievances

encouraging conspiracy theories

promoting an ‘us vs. them’ mentality

blaming specific communities for grievances

encouraging the use of hatred and violent actions to get justice

encouraging ideas of supremacy”

These push and pull factors are extremely significant, as anyone familiar with the cult tactics of the gender movement will be aware. 

KCSIE then goes on to confirm these children need clinical help, not social transition by activist teachers. It recognises that  “209. Risks can be compounded where children lack trusted adults with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced and create a culture where they can speak out or share their concerns with members of staff.” 

KCSIE also recognises that keeping secrets from parents is an extreme safeguarding risk. In all but exceptional cases, parents should be the trusted adults and schools should not be allowing gender ideology to sow seeds of distrust in the family. The implication that parents who don’t affirm their child’s transgender ideation are a risk to them, is a tactic to remove familial support from the child, which is a key factor in the indoctrination of vulnerable children into extremist ideologies. 

These changes to KCSIE are a great step in the right direction, but there’s more, which is perhaps even more significant. On p156, it states “preventing radicalisation section remains under review, following the publication of a new definition of extremism on the 14 March 2024.”

KCSIE also states “Children may be susceptible to radicalisation into terrorism. Similar to protecting children from other forms of harms and abuse, protecting children from this risk should be a part of a schools or colleges safeguarding approach.” The PREVENT guidance says 

“Individuals increasingly adopt a mix of ideas from different ideologies into their grievance narratives.

This could include individuals who:

show an interest in multiple extremist ideologies at the same time

switch from one ideology to another over time

target a ‘perceived other’ of some kind (perhaps based on gender or another protected characteristic), but do not otherwise identify with one particular terrorist ideology or cause – for example, involuntary celibates (incels) who direct their anger mainly at women

are obsessed with massacre, or extreme or mass violence, without specifically targeting a particular group – for example, high school shootings

show an interest in conspiracy theories which can act as gateway to radicalised thinking, common themes include:

religious or ethnic superiority

antisemitism

misogyny

anti-establishment and anti-LGBT grievances

may be susceptible to being drawn into terrorism out of a sense of duty, or a desire for belonging, rather than out of any strongly held beliefs” 

We would suggest that gender ideology is one of the craziest conspiracy theories ever seen, and it’s vital that those in power recognise it as such urgently. 

As the Prevent guidance states, “Radicalisation is like grooming.” The harsh truth is that our schools have enabled the radicalisation of our children into trans terrorism. They have allowed extremist groups like Stonewall to promote this harmful ideology. The transgender movement harms vulnerable children, women and same-sex attracted people. The violence of “gender affirming care” is grotesque, and I say that as a woman who has had “top surgery”. That it has been done to vulnerable teenage girls in the name of gender ideology is abhorrent. 

KCSIE says, “Terrorism is an action that endangers or causes serious violence to a person/people” and the Terrorism Act 2000 specifies actions that “(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”

The new definition of extremism says “Extremism can lead to the radicalisation of individuals, deny people their full rights and opportunities, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, erode our democratic institutions, social capital and cohesion, and can lead to acts of terrorism”

This is exactly what gender ideology is doing, in so many ways. It then says “The Independent Review of Prevent made clear the importance of placing greater emphasis on tackling ideology and its radicalising effects and in its response the government committed “to challenge extremist ideology that leads to violence, but also that which leads to wider problems in society, such as the erosion of freedom of speech””

Other wider problems in society such as rapists in women’s prisons, men in women’s sports, rape crisis centres and other spaces, gay conversion, and a generation of physically and mentally broken youth are just a few examples of the serious problems that gender ideology causes to the health and safety of multiple sections of the public, but we all know of many more examples. 

“This new definition does not seek to stymie free speech or freedom of expression. There are concerns that those expressing conservative views will be classified as extremist. This is not the case.”

“2. The definition

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

(1)negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or

(2)undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 

(3)intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

Aim 1 (negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms): Behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence, and discrimination.” 

We believe this applies perfectly to the behaviour of those opposed to the right of women to meet and organise without men present, and the right of children in school to basic safeguarding. Trans rights organisations like Stonewall, have gone from one abuse tactic to the next with “No debate” evolving into “toxic culture war” gaslighting. 

Aim 3 (enabling the spread of extremism):

Providing an uncritical platform for individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.

Facilitating activity of individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2, including through provision of endorsement, funding, or other forms of support.

The dissemination of extremist propaganda and narratives that call for behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.

Attempts to radicalise, indoctrinate and recruit others to an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, including young people.

Consistent association with individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2 without providing critical challenge to their ideology or behaviour.

As does all of this. ““Intolerance” in the context of the definition is closely linked with “violence” and “hatred” and is to be applied to mean an actively repressive approach rather than simply a strong opposition or dislike.” 

Finally, “Any action or ideology that may be extremist must be considered in its wider context, where possible drawing on a range of evidence, to assess whether it forms part of a wider pattern of behaviour and whether that pattern of behaviour has been conducted with the aim of promoting or advancing an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance.”