A manifesto for confusion: The Scottish Government's revised guidance 'Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools':

ScotPAG professionals are so concerned about the Scottish Government's revised guidance, 'Supporting transgender pupils in schools', that we have written the attached letter to every Director of Education in Scotland. Why are we so concerned? The revised schools guidance is based entirely on the false premise that there is such a thing as gender identity and that 'trans' children exist. Only children exist. All children are individuals and have all kinds of personalities, needs and behaviours. But there are only two categories of humans - male and female. Our education system best benefits children and society by avoiding the promotion of a false concept. Yet that is exactly what the Scottish Government's revised 'trans' guidance for schools does. It tells school staff and children that there is a third type of human called 'transgender'.

The guidance tells schools that it is okay to a change pupil's name and sex and that consultation with parents may not be best; it has created a muddle regarding toilets and changing rooms, and has left schools and councils legally exposed. The resources recommended by the guidance demonstrates that advice has been sought from activists only, not child development experts. This updated guidance is proof, as if it were needed, that the Scottish Government has been completely duped by false claims and is too arrogant and captured to take stock and learn from its mistakes. This breaks trust with the public and harms children and families. As George Orwell wrote,

'However much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing.'

Isn't it time for Jenny Gilruth and the rest of her Scottish Government colleagues to give some thought as to how their appalling legacy might be viewed in years to come?

Dear Director of Education,

We are ScotPAG, a group of experienced professionals across education, social work, and health. We are compelled to express our grave concerns about the Scottish Government’s recent guidance, Supporting Transgender Pupils in Schools.

While the clarification of existing law and the 1992 Education (Scotland) Regulations is valuable, the underlying premise of this document remains profoundly troubling. It is not a neutral framework but, rather, a continuation of the push to embed gender identity ideology within our schools—an ideology lacking scientific foundation which presses claims that simply do not withstand scrutiny.

At the core of Scottish education is an evidence-based culture. Schools are expected to provide clear evidence of impact when facing inspection, and educators are required to justify practice through measurable outcomes. Yet this guidance promotes un-evidenced assertions, such as the claim that children’s wellbeing may suffer if adults do not affirm a perceived “gender identity.” These statements are not anchored in research, but in ideology, and they expose schools and education authorities to significant risks, including legal and compromised safeguarding risks.

The Cass Review, the most robust and independent investigation on this subject to date, found the evidence base for affirmation and medicalisation in children to be weak, inconsistent, and in many cases, absent. Cass highlighted severe failings where the unquestioned adoption of gender-ideology frameworks had placed children at considerable risk of harm. Ignoring such comprehensive findings in Scotland would be both reckless and professionally indefensible.

It is also critical to note the broader safeguarding risk, stated by the Scottish Government, in devolving responsibility to individual schools. The current premise that schools and headteachers should essentially “navigate the details” on their own is a worryingly risky strategy for Councils. It places disproportionate pressure and liability on individual staff members who are not properly equipped to adjudicate on complex issues of child development, health, and law. Such an abdication of systemic responsibility exposes both schools and authorities to long-term legal, professional, and reputational consequences.

Children and young people must not be treated as experimental ground for a contested and unproven ideology. Nobody can change sex: that is not reality. In addition, those children who are exposed second hand to an environment where they are expected to swallow this ideology without question, are also at risk of being manipulated by being asked to collude with this social contagion in order to avoid being branded “unkind.” Children deserve safeguarding built upon evidence, intellectual honesty, and care that prioritises their long-term welfare. Schools exist to educate, not to act as vehicles for politicised belief systems.

We urge you, as a senior leader in Scottish education, to raise these urgent concerns with the Scottish Government who must take responsibility for the implementation of such matters. We also recommend that you to ensure your policies are robust enough to stand up to scrutiny in the face of challenge from concerned families. Local Authorities must not be passively implementing guidance that undermines the evidence-based standards long embedded in our education system. To do so places Councils and individual staff at risk

.

Councils have a duty of care to ensure that schools are protected, supported, and guided by measures that safeguard children rather than expose them to harm. These revised guidelines do not provide the necessary framework for evidence based, child centered practice. We have already written to the Scottish Government to ask that they be revoked in their entirety.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn Brown,

ScotPAG Convenor, and Retired Depute Principal Psychologist

Carole McKenzie

Retired Director of Education and former HMI Inspector of schools

Additional signatories

June Campbell Retired Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist

Dr Jenny Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician

Dr Brigid Daniel, Professor Emerita

Dr Angela Dixon, Retired GP

Pauline Fox, Retired Clinical Nurse Specialist/Team lead

Dr xxxxx xxxxxx, GP

Mrs xxxx xxxxx Head Teacher

Dr xxxx xxxxx Consultant Clinical Psychologist

Victoria Hart, Midwife

Maggie Mellon, Senior Social Worker