Trans ID Inclusion Guidance, issued March 2025

​​​​Request ​795196348

1. Trans ID Inclusion Guidance, issued March 2025 Provide a list of all individuals/organisations consulted during the development of the guidance, including their roles, affiliations (e.g, government employees, external consultants, activists, representatives from groups such as Liberate or UK-based organizations) give dates of consultations.

2. Provide a list of all individuals and organisations involved in drafting the guidance, including: government employees or departments, external consultants or individuals (whether working independently, from activist groups, or other entities, particularly those based in the UK). Local politicians or elected officials. Provide the basis or criteria used for selecting these individuals or organizations for involvement (e.g. expertise, diversity of views, or other factors).

3. Provide details of all persons, teams or representatives of organisations who were involved in the drafting process

4. Provide a description of the involvement by Liberate (or any affiliated individuals) in the development, consultation, or drafting of the guidance, specifically in relation to contributions made, dates and nature of any meetings, communications, or inputs. Provide details of funding, resources, or support delivered by or to Liberate

5. Provide details of how any external resource materials referenced or included in the guidance were selected and vetted, include, Criteria or processes used for selection. Reviews, evaluations, or audits conducted on these materials. Provide details of alternative resources considered but not included, and reasons.

6. Provide details of any gender-critical organisations, individuals, or representatives who were consulted or involved in the development process. Provide copies of any assessments, risk analyses or evidence reviews to ensure the guidance was based on robust, evidence-based practices rather than ideological or activist influences, include references to scientific studies, legal advice, or impact assessments on children and schools.

7. Details of meetings, workshops, or working groups held during the development process, including agendas, attendee lists, minutes, and outcomes, with particular reference to discussions on balancing diverse viewpoints (e.g transgender advocacy vs. gender-critical perspectives).

8. Provide all communication (e.g., emails, memos, or reports) between the drafting team and external parties (including UK-based activists or organizations) regarding the content, tone, or recommendations of the guidance.

9. Provide the timeline of the development process, including key milestones, from initial conception to publication, and any changes made to drafts in response to consultations or feedback.

10. Provide any costs associated with the development of the guidance, broken down by category and details of how these were funded.

11. Provide post-publication reviews, feedback, or planned evaluations of the implementation in schools, including records concerns.

Clarification Requested

Please clarify what is meant by a ‘gender-critical organisation’.

Clarification Received

A gender critical organization is a group advocating for policies and views that prioritize biological sex as a protected category, often critiquing gender identity ideology for its perceived impact on women's rights, safety, and spaces, as well as safeguarding children from what they view as potentially harmful practices, such as early medical interventions or social transitions for minors.

Response

1. A variety of agencies and experts were engaged from within their fields to ensure all aspects of need was understood.

Below is a list of all parties consulted during the development of the guidance.

Children, Young People, Education and Skills 

Primary School Head Teacher from fee paying and non-fee-paying schools 

Secondary School Assistant Head Teacher 

Secondary School Head 

Teacher Student Support Lead

Student Positive Mental Health and Wellbeing Manager

Youth Worker 

Service Manager 

Project Lead 

Safeguarding Officer 

Head of Service in Children's Social Care 

Lead Nurse CAMHS

Health Care Jersey

Subject specific expert 

Safeguarding Nurse 

Other 

A representative from Liberate

Invited to present to working group 

Teacher from a United Kingdom Faith school R

epresentative from Mermaids 

Scottish Trans Alliance

Women's Rights Network 

Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES) Senior Leadership Team 

Other 

Consultation with Brighton and Hove Local Authority in the United Kingdom. 

The following are dates of meetings held and the purpose: 

First working group to discuss set up of working group to review existing Transgender Guidance, 20 Dec 2023 

Minister's Briefing - Update on Transgender Guidance in Schools and Review Working Group, 8 Jan 2024 

Pre-Meet – Transgender Guidance policy working group, 19th Jan 2024 

Working Group – Transgender Policy and Guidance for Schools, 26th Jan 2024 

Pre-Meet – Transgender Guidance – working group, 28th Feb 2024 

Education Transgender Guidance working group, 8th Mar 2024 

Pre-meet Transgender Guidance working group, 30th Apr 2024 

Transgender Guidance Ministerial Group Briefing, 2nd May 2024 

Transgender Guidance Working Group Catch Up, 24th May 2024 

Transgender Guidance Reviewing and drafting, 5th Jun 2024 

Transgender Guidance Working Group, Women's Rights Network and Catholic Schools rep from UK - 19th Jun 2024 

Draft Transgender Guidance updates from meeting, 24th Jun 2024 

Drafting Transgender Guidance, 25th Jun 2024 

Prep and set up for the Transgender Guidance Working Group, 12th Jul 2024 

Transgender Guidance Working Group Meeting, 12th Jul 2024 

Transgender Guidance Drafting, 24th Jul 2024 

Transgender Guidance Policy – Check in, 6th Aug 2024 

Meeting – Transgender Guidance and Equality Policy, 12th Aug 2024 

Pre Meeting for Transgender Guidance Meeting, 2nd Oct 2024 

Transgender Guidance Working Group Review Guidance and Training, 6th Nov 2024 

Transgender Guidance Working Group – Review Guidance, 3rd Dec 2024 

Education – New Transgender Guidance Policy, 14th Feb 2025

2. A variety of agencies and experts were engaged from within their fields to ensure all aspects of need was understood. 

Below is a list of all parties involved in drafting the guidance:

Children, Young People, Education and Skills 

Primary School Head Teacher from fee paying and non-fee-paying schools 

Secondary School Head Teacher Student Support Lead

Student Positive Mental Health and Wellbeing Manager

Youth Worker 

Service Manager 

Project Lead 

Safeguarding Officer 

Head of Service in Children's Social Care 

Lead Nurse CAMHS

Health and Care Jersey

Subject specific expert 

Safeguarding Nurse 

Other 

A representative from Liberate

3. Please see response as detailed in question 2.

4. A Liberate representative was part of the working group. There was no funding, resources or support delivered to or by Liberate.

5. Working group members and those worked with provided resources and reviewed all resources presented to them, only resources approved by the working group as a whole were included in the guidance.

6. Please see response as detailed in question 1 which provides all parties consulted or involved in the development process.

Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is applied as there were no assessments or risk analyses undertaken as part of the process. 

The Cass Report (Dr Hillary Cass) was used as an evidence review and can be found in the public domain. Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is applied. This was used alongside the professionalism of the working group, advice given by those invited to present to the working group, as well as advice sought from a UK Local Authority in line with how they are navigating the topic. 

The existing guidance was used as a starting point and required updating.

A variety of organisations were invited to present to the working group as detailed in question 1. 

Extensive research was undertaken that looked at what best supports children's outcomes. This was to ensure a balanced document that was useful and safe for use with children and young people. 

The document was produced through a safeguarding lens by all professionals. This was designed with the safeguarding of all children and young people, and the preservation of positive mental health at the heart of what was produced.

7. Details of meetings, workshops, or working groups held during the development process, including agendas, attendee lists, minutes, and outcomes, with particular reference to discussions on balancing diverse viewpoints constitutes the formulation or development of the proposed policy therefore Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is applied.

8. Communication between the drafting team and external parties regarding the content, tone, or recommendations of the guidance constitutes the formulation or development of the proposed policy therefore Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is applied.

9. Please see response as detailed in question 1.

10. No information is held on costs associated with the development of the guidance as no fees were raised. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is therefore applied.

11. The published policy review date is March 2027.

Articles Applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest Test

Background

The request relates to information that was used as part of the development process for a guidance document that has now been formally produced and published. Although the final guidance is in the public domain, the supporting information (e.g., draft analysis, advice, preliminary options, assessments, early drafts of guidance, internal discussion notes) remain sensitive.

Under Article 35, information is exempt if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy. Even where the final policy has been completed, the exemption can still apply if disclosure would prejudice the ongoing functions of the authority or constrain the development of related or future policy.

Factors Favouring Disclosure

a. Transparency and accountability

Disclosure may support transparency regarding the considerations and evidence that informed the final policy. Allowing the public to see the basis for the decision can strengthen trust and demonstrate that the authority followed a robust and rational process.

b. Understanding of the policy rationale

Releasing background information can help the public better understand the reasoning behind the final guidance and facilitate meaningful public debate.

c. Support for open government

There is a general public interest in public authorities being open about their work. The Freedom of Information Law is founded on a presumption towards disclosure unless there is a compelling reason not to disclose.

Factors Favouring Withholding

a. Protection of the policy‑making safe space (even after publication)

CYPES recognises that although the public interest in maintaining Article 35 diminishes once a policy is final, the safe‑space rationale can still apply if disclosure would prejudice future policy development or constrain officials’ ability to explore options freely. This is especially relevant where:

• The underlying information includes sensitive internal discussions;

• The authority may need to revisit, revise, or extend the guidance;

• Disclosure could lead to misinterpretation of preliminary or incomplete analysis.

b. Avoiding prejudice to related or future policy work

If the same or similar issues may arise in future policy cycles, disclosure of sensitive background material could inhibit frankness in future internal discussions, harming the quality of policy formulation.

c. Preventing misunderstanding or misinterpretation

Preliminary assumptions, draft formulations, and option papers may not reflect the authority’s final or current position. Disclosure may mislead the public or create unnecessary concern based on raw or untested material.

d. Sensitive material unrelated to the final policy text

Some supporting information may involve sensitive operational detail, personal data considerations, or third‑party information that was not intended for public dissemination and remains sensitive despite policy publication.

Balancing the Public Interest

The authority must determine whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in disclosure.

This assessment must be based on the circumstances at the time of the request, weighing the specific public interest arguments for Article 35.

In this case:

• The policy has been published, increasing the weight in favour of disclosure.

• However, the withheld information contains material that remains sensitive, and;

•

Disclosure would likely prejudice the safe space needed for policy refinement, review, or future related policy‑making, as well as risk confusion about the authority’s settled position.

• CYPES acknowledges that Article 35 may remain applicable where needed to preserve sufficient freedom within the policy formulation process, even after a policy is made public.

Given these factors, the public interest in withholding still outweighs the public interest in release at this time.

Conclusion

After carefully weighing the competing public interest considerations, the authority concludes that although the final guidance has been published, the background information remains sensitive, and disclosure would likely prejudice the effective formulation of future or related guidance and undermine the safe space required for candid policy development.

Accordingly, the information is withheld under Article 35 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.