London’s child-protection body has abandoned its gender training programme, which advised frontline professionals to learn neopronouns such as “zirself” and “eirself,” as well as family and relationship titles including “dommy,” “zaza,” “nibling,” “datefriend,” and “loveperson,” following a legal threat.
The city-wide child protection partnership — the Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) — which sets training standards for safeguarding professionals across the capital, had included these terms in an online course offered to staff in key safeguarding positions, including teachers, social workers, and NHS staff.
However, last night it issued a legal letter stating that the programme would be stopped following the legal threat.
According to an alleged recording of the session, attendees were told: “Respecting and affirming someone with regard to their gender and gender identity… it’s simple. It’s a quick win. It’s really important.
“If I tell you that I want to use the pronouns he, him, or they/them, then please respect me too… really, at the end of the day, it’s just a word.”
“Is it hurting anyone? A name is just a word. Is it hurting anyone?”
And: “If you’ve got a child or young person who wants to be identified as male instead of female… it is their basic human right… So, we need to work with these young people and make sure they’re able to be themselves.”
The Bayswater Support Group, representing over 800 parents of trans-identified children, claimed the course — “Safeguarding LGBTQ+ Children” — was inaccurate, unlawful, incomplete, and politicised, and could steer staff toward unsafe practices involving vulnerable children.
Pro trans protests erupted across Britain following the Supreme Court ruling | PA
The training, run by third-party trainer Tracy Martinez, took place on 7 November 2025 and was being offered monthly. It was free and advertised as “best practice” for anyone in safeguarding roles.
A Bayswater spokesperson said: “It’s unacceptable that a publicly funded body failed to check the assertions made by Ms Martinez, especially in this vital area of safeguarding children.
“Underlying a trans identity in a child are complex pre-existing factors such as childhood trauma, sexual abuse, bullying, autism, ADHD, and social isolation. In this so-called safeguarding training, Ms Martinez wrongly and dangerously suggested that once a child questions their gender identity, it’s an open-and-shut case: they must be affirmed in their ‘new identity.’
“However, there are significant risks to any social transition or affirmation of identity — not just parental alienation, but also physical harms from binding (of breasts), tucking (of male genitalia), and DIY hormones.”
Trans protest in Oxford | PA
They added: “Indoctrinating safeguarding professionals to act in this way is like instructing the bank manager to rob a bank. We hope this case will highlight the ideological capture of safeguarding training for trans-identifying children and bring some very overdue scrutiny into this area.”
Bayswater Support Group is represented by solicitor Paul Conrathe, who said the training conflicted with statutory guidance and the independent Cass Review into gender services.
He said: “This training not only completely misrepresented the law but advocated for activism. It stood in stark contrast to the careful and cautious approach of NHS guidance, Department for Education guidance, and the Cass Review. ‘Safeguarding training’ is a misnomer: it’s in fact a political call to implement gender ideology in practice. Most concerning is that it risked significantly misleading the very people responsible for the safety and welfare of vulnerable children.”
He added: “We are delighted that the LSCP has seen sense and will no longer be offering this course by the third-party provider Ms Martinez, which raised serious legal concerns. We are waiting for their full response. In due course, we will be asking them to write to each of the participants on past courses, many of whom have important roles safeguarding vulnerable children, to explain that the training should not be followed.”
The LSCP stated in a legal letter on Friday:“We confirm that we are taking instructions from our client and will provide you with a substantive response to your above letter. Before we provide the substantive response, we confirm that no further courses of the kind complained of will be provided by our client.”