Jersey Schools Guidance: Unlawful, Outdated & Putting Girls at Risk – Why Politicians Refused to Act

Janice Moore, Coordinator of Women’s Rights Network Jersey

Background

Jersey is a self-governing British Crown Dependency with its own legislature, courts, and legal system. It drafts and passes its own laws, policies and guidance.

Its current schools “Trans Inclusion Guidance”, in place since March 2025 (replacing the 2021 version) supports children’s social transition—sometimes without parental knowledge—and allows children of the opposite sex access to single-sex toilets, changing rooms and residential accommodation based on their gender identity.

Women’s Rights Network Jersey and Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend have been working together to overturn this guidance and to replace it with alternative guidance grounded in safeguarding. Stephanie visited Jersey in early 2025 for meetings with government and the public to raise concerns about the existing guidance.

Following from this visit, Deputy Sir Philip Bailhache decided to act. He drafted a proposition to revoke the guidance and adopt alternative guidance written by Stephanie, based on safeguarding. After a briefing by Stephanie and discussion with politicians at the Jersey parliament in March this year, the proposal was debated in the States Assembly and ultimately defeated.

Jersey has chosen the same activist pathway as England, although in the case of Jersey some public debate has happened. This is down to the tireless work of local parents and one brave Deputy. We wait to see if raising early awareness of the issues will have any impact on the future direction Jersey takes.

Comment

The proposition to revoke and replace the schools guidance was defeated a few weeks ago. Sadly, this was fairly inevitable. It is a topic most people avoid. For politicians, particularly in an election year, it is seen as too toxic to risk; it takes real political courage to put one's head above the parapet. Even some of the deputies who supported the proposition failed to vote in favour of it.

Deputy Bailhache made two key points during the debate:

1. Schools should not be affirming or supporting social transition. Deputies expressed outrage at this, defending the guidance for its supposedly inclusive, “be-kind” approach.

Yet the proposed alternative closely follows England's new draft guidance (now heading into statutory form), and Guernsey has already adopted guidance that keeps gender identity out of schools. Research and evidence have moved on. Jersey is lagging behind — it's hubris to think CYPES can "do better" than England.

2. The current guidance is unlawful.

The UK Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025, ruled unanimously that the definition of "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex. Consequently, access to single-sex facilities—toilets, changing rooms, and sports—must be based on biological sex, not gender identity.

This ruling applies to Jersey. Top legal professionals confirmed this in the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review (June 2025). Jersey’s schools guidance is therefore breaking the law by basing access to single-sex facilities on gender identity. When boys who identify as girls are permitted to use girls-only facilities and residential accommodation, the law is being ignored. And girls are being put at risk, despite the government’s stated priorities to address Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).

Unlawful guidance cannot be allowed to stand. What will it take to have it struck down? The fear of lawsuits? A change in leadership? Or a slow return to common sense?

Several points made by deputies in support of the current guidance are noteworthy. Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham said this is not happening in Jersey schools. But parents have contacted me with direct evidence that contradict this:

• A primary school where children under ten use whichever toilets they want, leading to girls regularly seeing boys’ genitals.

• A secondary school where these issues arise regularly and had been presently dealing with a request that a male student share residential accommodation with girls because he identified as one.

• Entire friendship groups, mostly girls, identifying as the opposite sex—sometimes with their parents' knowledge, and sometimes not.

This is happening in Jersey, and it is being exacerbated by a lack of clarity and common sense in the official guidance.

A number of deputies stood up to talk about prioritising “inclusion”. It is deeply concerning that none of them seem to appreciate that the inclusion of boys, however they may identify, in girls’ facilities and sports, often results in the exclusion of girls: girls will opt out of sport, they will avoid going to shared toilet and changing room facilities. Is girls’ inclusion less important?

Deputy Louise Doublet suggested that groups questioning the guidance could be characterised as "hate groups." She later backtracked after being challenged, potentially to avoid legal concerns regarding her public statements.

Claims that this is “hate” or "imported bigotry" is a convenient way to ignore local concerns. Every person who has reached out to me is from Jersey. Having lived here for twelve years and seen three children through the island's school system, I know this is a local issue—dismissing it as an outside influence is a convenient tactic to silence critics.

Some deputies have asked why, if people are unhappy, they aren't writing in to say so. The truth is that some have taken the care and time to write, but they are largely ignored. Deputy Sam Mezec sent derisory and openly hostile responses to some who wrote, even when they requested "no response". 

For the majority, however, they remain silent because they are scared. They see what happens to those who speak up: some have lost jobs, careers, friends. Most face harassment in some form or another. I have been on the receiving end of abuse and threats right here in “be-kind” Jersey. When speaking up makes you the target of a torrent of abuse—including from elected officials—is it any wonder people are frightened?

Just because Jersey’s politicians rejected this proposition does not mean they are on the right side of the argument, or that the public stands with them. It would be a mistake to underestimate the level of anger and frustration growing in Jersey. Especially in an election year.