Fury as NSPCC say male teachers can supervise girls in changing rooms
The NSPCC has quietly dropped its long-standing guidance that adults supervising children while they change should be the same sex as those children, meaning male teachers could now oversee girls changing for swimming or sports. The child protection charity's move has provoked anger from MPs and women's rights campaigners, who accuse it of caving to pressure from transgender activists rather than following the Supreme Court's April 2025 ruling on sex-based rights, which they say should have prompted a switch to "biological sex" wording rather than deletion of the safeguard altogether.
The NSPCC initially claimed the change mirrored an update to Department for Education statutory guidance this summer, but the DfE denied removing any such recommendation, prompting the charity to instead say its decision was based on a "variety of sources". Tory equalities spokesman Joy Morrissey called the move "completely unacceptable" and urged the Government to review the guidance, while Sex Matters chief executive Maya Forstater accused the NSPCC of being "cowardly, weak and hypocritical" and prioritising avoiding offence to trans activists over children's safety and dignity. The NSPCC denies acting under lobbying pressure and says it may revisit the guidance once the Equality and Human Rights Commission provides further direction.
In short
- NSPCC removed same-sex supervision rule for children's changing rooms
- Campaigners and Tory MP accuse charity of bowing to trans lobbying
- NSPCC denies lobbying influence; may review after EHRC guidance
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the change argue that safeguarding is best achieved through robust practices, such as ensuring multiple adults are present, visibility is maintained, and staff conduct is properly supervised, rather than through a blanket rule based solely on the sex of the supervising adult. They contend that competent, vetted teachers of any sex can supervise changing rooms professionally, that rigid same-sex rules can be impractical in schools with limited staff, and that guidance should evolve thoughtfully in response to the Supreme Court ruling and wider legal and professional advice rather than staying static. They also emphasise that inclusion of staff regardless of sex, where properly trained and supervised, need not compromise children's welfare.
The case against
Critics argue that safeguarding guidance exists precisely to protect children's privacy, dignity and safety during vulnerable moments such as changing for sport, and that removing the same-sex supervision rule strips away a clear, easily understood safeguard in favour of vaguer principles. They contend that the Supreme Court ruling reinforced the relevance of biological sex to such protections, and that the guidance should have been clarified rather than deleted, especially given children's limited ability to object or report discomfort. They also express concern that the charity's shifting and contested justification, first citing DfE guidance that the DfE denies existed, undermines confidence that the decision was driven by rigorous safeguarding analysis rather than a wish to avoid controversy.
Explained simply
NSPCC guidance on adult supervision of children while changing has changed. For years, the charity recommended that anyone overseeing children during activities like swimming or PE, when they might be getting changed, should be the same sex as the children in their care. That recommendation has now been removed, meaning male staff could in principle supervise girls' changing rooms.
The change comes against a backdrop of wider debate over sex and gender in public life, including a Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 on how sex is defined in equality law. The NSPCC is one of the UK's best-known child protection charities, and its guidance is widely used by schools and other organisations, so any shift in its advice carries weight beyond the charity itself. Critics, including some MPs and campaign groups focused on women's and girls' rights, argue the change weakens a safeguard; the NSPCC disputes that its decision was driven by outside pressure.
This dispute matters because it sits at the intersection of child safeguarding practice and a broader, ongoing argument about how organisations should apply sex-based rules following last year's court ruling. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the body responsible for guidance in this area, has yet to issue fuller direction, which is part of why the situation remains contested.