Has the single sex trans school conundrum finally been resolved?

Children struggle with many things during adolescence, and gender is just one of them. They need care and support, but support in a framework that has solid foundations: the reality of biological sex.

For too long, some teachers and schools have been making it up as they go along when presented with the challenge of accommodating transgender-identified children. Either that or they have contracted out their thinking to Stonewall or other third-party providers. The promised guidance from the Department for Education (DfE) cannot come soon enough. The latest snippet that has emerged will reassure single-sex schools that they can indeed remain single-sex.

The rules around such schools have always allowed for some discretion. A boys’ school, for example, might admit a girl into the sixth form if the local girls’ school doesn’t offer her desired combination of A-Level subjects. But nobody would be under any illusion that the child has changed sex to do so. Her admission would be an ‘exceptional circumstance’, and the school would retain its single-sex-status. She would also need to be provided with appropriate facilities for her sex.

But transgender-identified pupils – of the opposite sex – present a very different challenge. They are unlikely to want to be singled out for special treatment in, for example, sports, changing rooms and toilets. Pressure would no doubt be put on the school to include them, and the other children risk being deprived of their right to single-sex activities and facilities.

Such pupils also present a challenge to the entire concept of single-sex education. If single-sex has meaning it must mean that; not single-gender – whatever gender might mean. Because admitting children of the opposite sex is not a zero-sum game. If boys – male children – are admitted to girls’ schools then girls who wanted a single-sex education lose out.

Of course, children struggling with ‘gender distress’ – a much better term than gender dysphoria, in my view – should not be excluded from single-sex schools designated for their own sex. Children struggle with many things during adolescence, and gender is just one of them. They need care and support, but support in a framework that has solid foundations: the reality of biological sex.

If children had not been made promises that they could change their sex and be treated as their preferred sex for all purposes, then none of this would be an issue. But the concept of gender identity has taken root in our society. There is no proof that it exists and claims cannot be falsified or tested. It is merely an assertion of feelings. Not only that, it is an unnecessary concept. I am transsexual – as an adult, I went through a process of gender reassignment involving hormone therapy and surgery – but I do not claim a gender identity.

We need to be honest as individuals and with society: being transsexual does not mean a person changes their sex. This is what schools need to understand, and it seems the DfE guidance is leaning in that direction.

There will no doubt be howls of protest when the guidance is released. Possibly there has already been pushback from within Whitehall, given that we had been promised this guidance would be published by the summer term. But critics must not prevent schools receiving guidance that reassures us that we are doing the right thing when we uphold the truth we have always known. Boys are male, and girls are female. There is difference between male and female, and that difference matters.

Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist.

* This article was first published by The Spectator on 18 April 2023: Has the single sex trans school conundrum finally been resolved?

By Debbie Hayton

Physics teacher and trade unionist.

11 replies on “Has the single sex trans school conundrum finally been resolved?”

Your piece, DH, has rather more relevance to England than Scotland, but it does apply here, too, for what we call the private/fee-paying sector; we have few, if any, denominational schools in the state sector that are single-sex).

If anything, the situation in Scotland, in the state sector, is now dire, as more or less all teach gender ideology in some form – totally contrary to their legal guidance. The fee-paying schools still have some discretion, but most parents cannot afford to send their children to them, and even Catholic schools ‘accept’ gender ideology. I suspect that most of the ‘acceptance’ is the result of a generation of young, ‘woke’ teachers, and heads who are bludgeoned into ‘acceptance’ through fear of losing their jobs. I cannot think otherwise than this whole nonsense is putting even more stress on sensible teachers who are already hard-pressed.

In Scotland, there are numerous, state-funded ‘trans’ organizations, all acting as ‘advisors’ to government, with many ‘woke’ voices prevalent in the civil service and in local authorities. to the detriment of all. Needless to say, I, personally, would like to see them all cleared out of every public organization and institution. They are a menace to our children and youth, as well as being unhinged and deranged, which cannot be a good thing for any public service.

Your assertion, DH, that gender identity cannot be proved or disproved is, perhaps, a bit disingenuous? Every cell in one’s body carries one’s sex. That can be proved readily. What we are talking about is the connection or disconnection between brain and body. What an anorexic sees when she/he looks in the mirror is someone very different to the person that everyone else sees, so it is, beyond doubt, a body dysmorphic condition on the mental ill-health spectrum. The same, I would contend, applies to those with what is called ‘gender dysphoria’, hence the cry that they were born in the wrong body or that they always ‘knew’ they were the opposite sex.

This is the (present) requirement for a Gender Recognition Certificate. However, only a tiny fraction of the ‘trans gender’ community of today has this ‘gender dysphoria’. The vast majority of males are paraphiliacs (fetishists) or autogynephiles without accompanying body dysmorphia/gender dysphoria, and these conditions many psychologists have studied over many years, and can be attested to, as well. The female side of the equation is largely a result of social contagion and peer pressure, and again, this phenomenon was widely studied during the anorexia outbreak a few decades go, and the ‘cutting’ outbreak, almost solely confined to young females, while young males are less susceptible to peer pressure, but, because of their burgeoning sexuality, and the nature of male sexuality per se, are far more prone to fetishes and autogynephilia. Obviously, there will be males and females on the margins who do not fit these models, but, by and large, these, too, can be shown to be steady through the generations. Children’s susceptibilities to being indoctrinated (via school lessons on gender) are both immense and terrifying, and, again, many studies have been done into just that phenomenon in totalitarian/fascist societies.

Why we have this avalanche of ‘trans’ now is, I think, partly because of the liberal laws we have in the West, partly because ill-intended people (probably a large number of psychopaths) have seized the opportunity to cause chaos and driven it as activists, partly because porn is readily available in its extremes and because many (mainly middle-class leftist) people’s children have been influenced by it. They have not known struggle in any form, had everything handed to them on a plate and, now, their social conscience (which, in other circumstances might be a good thing) has seized on this gender ideology as the answer to all ills and as a means to rebel against the established order. They are not marching to make poor people’s lives better, for the vote or anything remotely worthwhile, but because they want to rebel against crumbling Western mores and values that are mostly decent because these are an easy target. They are, essentially, entitled and lazy. Not all, obviously, but too many. Again, this psychology can be underpinned by the experts.

What is not happening (although the first stirrings are to be felt now) is that anyone in a position of authority or in a position to offer truth and reality to lies and unreality have been hesitant to do so, to put their heads above the parapet because of the aggression and ‘cancelling’ tactics of the enfants terrible of our age. They are going to have to eventually, of course, because this nonsense has the potential to be fatal to our society, and to the West, in general, lauded and financed as it is by American corporate billionaires in the shadows (and, probably, psychopaths with a different agenda from those psychopathic activists), and they never risk their dollars on something unless it is going to enrich them even more – and, Stonewall, their corporate slave and ‘financial ‘beneficiary’ is only too willing to make a start with the youngest children in our schools, state or single-sex, fee-paying or otherwise. Like all corporate organizations, it is a self-perpetuating entity, blind in both eyes to its potential for destructive behaviours and immense harm.


Re: psychopaths

The fact that psychopaths rule is only ONE part of the equation. The pack of leading criminals do not operate in a vacuum, and never have. There are 2 destructive human pink elephants in the room and they are MARRIED — study the free essay “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room”… (or

The criminals in powers are in those positions and do what they do ONLY because of the mostly willful activities, or inactivities, of the majority of self-entitled “good” or “compassionate” or “religious” people — the 90-95% of the herd.

Without a proper understanding, and full acknowledgment, of the true WHOLE problem and reality, no real constructive LASTING change is possible for humanity.

And if anyone does NOT acknowledge, recognize, and face (either wittingly or unwittingly) the WHOLE truth THEY are helping to prevent this from happening. And so they are “part of the problem” and not part of the solution.

The ruling gang of criminals pulled of the Covid Scam globally via its WHO institution because almost all nations belong to it. If you’re in the US go to and sign the American Sovereignty Declaration to #ExitTheWHO and follow their prompts to contact your representatives and tell them to work for their constituents instead of the mega psychopaths in power.

“We’ll know our Disinformation Program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” —William Casey, a former CIA director=a leading psychopathic criminal of the genocidal US regime


I also think it’s time we stop tip toeing around issues of mental health and autism in our young people and start looking into why the huge increase is happening. I don’t think it’s just down to better diagnosis methods.

Liked by 1 person

Yes. I did start searching for answers to your first question, but got distracted with a torrent of trans propaganda. There’s probably some good research out there on what is troubling kids these days, although I have a feeling I can have a good guess about some of it. The pandemic not only caused educational turmoil, but I imagine impressed on young children the issue of mortality in a way they might not so soon, then there are strikes, economic crisis, predictions of poor incomes and uni debts, global warming, the Internet’s many sicknesses, war, the threat of WWIII, hyper-sexualised culture, the trans issue itself, AI threatening jobs and (many say) humanity…these are such fun times to be growing up. I do strongly suspect the temptation of transitioning might partly be due to a desperate desire to demonstrate absolute control over something in such a chaotic world. It’s a known response to lack of structure.

Liked by 1 person

I agree with your comments lettersquash but I feel I have to include environmental effects. I know this is controversial and people don’t want to talk about it but I am dismayed at the large number of vaccinations considered necessary for tiny babies these days plus water fluoridation, which for bottle fed babies will be considerable. I just put it out there and will probably be shot down but when my children grew up in the early 80s none of this existed.


I’m certainly not going to shoot you down, and I haven’t got sufficient knowledge of the biochemistry to comment. I kind of imagine the scientific community has done the longitudinal studies to have put these issues to bed, but perhaps that’s naive. I’ve spent a decent amount of time digging into “alternative” theories of one kind or another, but not vaccinations or fluoride beyond a cursory dip. I feel fairly sure that fluoride has radically improved dental health; on the other hand, if the food industry hadn’t pushed refined sugar on us, maybe we’d not need it. Certainly, into the mix of psychological stresses I mentioned we should probably add junk food and an obesity epidemic. Too many people live on sugar, fat and factory chicken.


You seem like a curious person so I will just say thar fluoride is an industrial waste product which for some reason we have decided is good for us ditto pumping our tiny babies with chemicals to protect them from gaining natural immunity. The original idea of immunising children against deadly diseases was good but we have taken this to include a wide range of infections which are not deadly and I can’t help but wonder if we have left ourselves open to unintended consequences?

Liked by 1 person

I understand your position, but I think it’s a difficult balance to strike. We gain immunity through suffering sickness, and sometimes that can kill people, particularly if they’re vulnerable for some reason. I wonder which vaccines you’re thinking of, and which diseases aren’t deadly. People die from the common cold. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that we over-use anti-pathogens, and scientists have long warned that we’re heading for a situation where bacteria are immune to antibiotics. That might be changing with recent developments in genetic engineering and AI, but evolution is essentially an arms race, and there will always be something out to get us. The more we fight back, the more we stimulate the pathogen’s evolution, but stopping fighting has a high cost. It’s almost certain that sterilizing our homes to keep babies safe, for example, is weakening their immune systems and causing lots of food intolerance, etc., and that is stupid and caused by companies scare-mongering and appealing to parents’ sense of guilt and fear. On the other hand, if nobody took reasonable measures to keep homes clean, lots of babies would end up in hospital or dead through common sources of infection. And vaccines aren’t quite the same – in fact, they stimulate the immune system with a safer version or proxy of the pathogen – the opposite principle to cleaning the environment of pathogens. I think I’m very much on your side on this general principle – I’m just not sure enough of the details with regard to fluoride or infant vaccination to call it. I have, of course, seen the large contingent of the scientific community lamenting the anti-fluoride and anti-vaxxer movements, and my default position is that they’re right – I’m sorry, but scientists usually are. Hey, this is getting long and convoluted and it’s off-topic – I wonder if we should continue by email. I’m open to the idea.


Excellent. Thanks for following my blog, Pauline, and of course you’ll find my email address on there if you wish to contact me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s