Beyond Ideology: Has NAIS Lost its Way on Gender?

 Beyond Ideology: Grounding NAIS Gender Policies and Advice in Evidence and Care

The National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) has adopted positions and recommendations regarding gender affirmation and inclusion that are increasingly under scrutiny. Initially driven by a desire to support marginalized students and promote inclusivity, these efforts lack grounding in sound medical science. Recent developments in medical research, legal challenges, and parental concerns indicate that NAIS must reassess its approach to remain aligned with its educational mission.

The Case for Reassessment

The Cass Review: A Wake-Up Call

The Cass Review,  an independent analysis of gender-affirming care conducted in the United Kingdom, has raised significant doubts about the scientific basis for such interventions for minors. Dr. Hilary Cass’s comprehensive four-year analysis found the evidence for medical interventions in gender care “remarkably weak”. 

Key findings include:

  • Lack of conclusive evidence supporting the efficacy of gender-affirming care in addressing gender dysphoria in young people.
  • Absence of clear proof that transitioning reduces suicide risk among gender dysphoric youths.
  • Insufficient data on the long-term consequences of interventions for managing gender-related distress.The Report found that clinicians cannot be certain which children and young people will have an enduring trans identity in adulthood, and that for most, a medical pathway will not be the most appropriate.

Dr. Cass advocates for a shift towards comprehensive psychological care and psychosocial support, advising against defaulting to gender reassignment therapies until further research is conducted.

Legal Challenges and Parental Concerns

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, highlighting the contentious nature of this issue. The case of U.S. v. Skrmetti raises critical questions about the constitutional implications of gender-affirming care for minors, focusing on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Lawsuits like that of Kaya Clementine Breen  against medical professionals who facilitated her transition as a minor serve as cautionary tales. Breen’s case highlights the potential risks of rushed gender transitions, including:

  • School counselors suggesting to students—and their parents—that children confused about their sexuality and in emotional distress are “transgender.”
  • Diagnosis of gender dysphoria occurring “mere minutes” into her first appointment at age 12.
  • Immediate prescription of puberty blockers, followed by testosterone at 13 and a double mastectomy at 14.
  • Lack of comprehensive mental health assessment before treatment.
  • Unaddressed trauma from childhood sexual abuse that may have contributed to her gender dysphoria.

These cases underscore the importance of exercising caution in aligning with activist-driven agendas that may prioritize ideology over evidence-based care. A growing number of outspoken detransitioners are creating a record of the harm done to them

NAIS Policies and Approach

NAIS has proactively addressed transgender issues in schools through resources, guidelines, and professional development partnerships. However, its approach needs recalibration:

  • Current Stance: NAIS encourages schools to include gender identity and expression in their inclusivity work and to establish policies supporting transgender students.
  • Resource Recommendations: NAIS directs schools to organizations such as GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), GLSEN, and the ACLU. While these groups have historically played important roles in civil rights advocacy for LGB individuals, they now face criticism for promoting gender identity theory and transgender advocacy that some view as homophobic and misogynistic.
  • Emphasis on Awareness and Education: NAIS advises school leaders to raise awareness about gender diversity. This advice overlooks the fact that these positions are highly controversial and ideologically driven.

The Need for Change

Revising Accreditation Criteria and Recommendations

NAIS should advise its affiliated associations to review their accreditation criteria to ensure they are rooted in scientific evidence rather than ideological positions:

  • Update accreditation materials to reflect a clear, science-based understanding of immutable binary sex versus ideas about gender.
  • Review recommended resources to focus on balanced, scientifically grounded perspectives.
  • Stop conflating sex and gender or using them interchangeably while adding vague concepts like gender expression and identity. NAIS must clearly state that sex is binary and immutable, that there are three sexual orientations, and that human personality exists within the sex binary without reliance on stereotypes.
  • Emphasize that sex, determined at conception, is important in specific contexts. Girls in schools deserve their own spaces and sports.

Addressing Parental Concerns

NAIS schools should adopt a collaborative model that respects parental voices in decision-making processes related to gender policies. This approach is supported by recent legal challenges, such as the case in Montgomery County, Maryland, where parents argued that  the school district’s gender support plan policy violated their 14th Amendment rights.

Prioritizing Evidence-Based Care

Encourage a holistic approach to student well-being that addresses underlying mental health issues as recommended by the the Cass Review:

  • Recognize the complex interplay between gender dysphoria and other mental health conditions.
  • Acknowledge that schools are not equipped to engage in powerful interventions represented by the affirmation model.
  • Emphasize comprehensive mental health assessments for students experiencing gender dysphoria.

Protecting Sex-Based Rights

NAIS should recognize the importance of maintaining sex-segregated spaces and sports for reasons of fairness, safety, and privacy—particularly for girls and women. This aligns with ongoing legal and societal debates about balancing transgender rights with sex-based protections.

Conclusion

NAIS must critically evaluate its positions on gender-affirming care for students by distinguishing research evidence from advocacy driven by ideology. It should review how it came to advocate its current stance while considering why it remained committed and silent on these contested issues despite mounting evidence of harm.

By realigning its policies with scientific evidence, child development, and refocusing on its core educational mission, NAIS can better serve all students while mitigating legal and reputational risks. This recalibration will ensure independent schools remain institutions of thoughtful education where all students can thrive without compromising any group’s rights or needs.

The time has come for NAIS to rethink its approach to gender affirmation and inclusion in schools. By grounding its policies in science rather than ideology, addressing parental concerns, and revising accreditation criteria and resources, NAIS can rebuild trust with families while reaffirming its commitment to student welfare.

For guidance on this matter, NAIS should consider consulting organizations like Sex Matters and Transgender Trend—two groups providing sound recommendations based on evidence for schools in the UK. Although developed under a different regulatory climate than the U.S., these guides offer invaluable insights into caring for students effectively.

Key Messages from Sex Matters and Transgender Trend:

  1. Every child has a sex; no child is “born in the wrong body.” Expression does not change a child’s sex.
  2. A child identifying as a different gender does not legally change their sex; they remain protected against discrimination based on both sex and “gender reassignment.”
  3. No child should feel pressured to conform to stereotypical behaviors based on their sex; all students deserve fair treatment.
  4. All policies must align with safeguarding principles; keeping a child’s sex secret is inconsistent with safeguarding.
  5. Schools must clarify that all pupils can share facilities designated for their sex but not those meant for the opposite sex.
  6. All bullying should be addressed consistently.
  7. Single-sex schools do not have to admit children based on “gender identity.”
  8. Policies regarding single-sex facilities should be applied consistently.
  9. Alternative unisex facilities can accommodate those seeking more privacy.
  10. Recognizing everyone’s sex is not “transphobic” when justified by safeguarding rules.

In addition, NAIS should advise its member schools to:

  • Ground health and sex education teaching on biology not ideology: Ensure that teaching reflects scientific facts rather than contested theories.
  • Stop teaching gender theory as fact: Encourage critical thinking, examination of the evidence, and open discussion.
  • Review classroom and library materials: Deselect content that promotes gender ideology to children and young people. This is not about banning books but about making informed, age-appropriate choices that prioritize education over advocacy.
  • Evaluate external content providers: Critically review the biases and agendas of outside speakers, program resources, and third-party content to ensure alignment with the school’s educational mission and material reality
  • Revisit established child development principles: Draw upon foundational work from theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, Erikson, Kohlberg, and Bandura to guide policies and practices.
  • Learn what we know about the reality of children who are confused about their sexual orientation and worried about puberty, Question the belief in the existence of the “trans child”.
  • Recognize the complexities of sexual orientation and puberty concerns: Address the realities facing children confused about their sexual orientation or anxious about puberty, providing support without assuming a one-size-fits-all solution.
  • Adopt a cautious approach: Navigate these issues by following evidence, prioritizing safeguarding, and adhering to the principle of ” Do No Harm.

As NAIS navigates these complex issues, it should prioritize student well-being while maintaining an environment conducive to thoughtful education free from contested ideologies. Its policies, positions and advocacy should be based on the evidence, on fact rather than fiction, on evidence rather than theory, and be respectful of a viewpoint diversity. By taking these actions, NAIS can reaffirm its commitment to student welfare, rebuild trust with families, and refocus on its educational mission: teaching students how to think, not what to think.