NHS Trans Policy: Chris Burns

As part of my series looking at the capture of the NHS I was sent this policy from 2008. Written by Chris Burns for the Department of health.

You can access the policy here:

dh_089939 NhS By Burns.

Transvestic Fetishism

The document makes it clear that the definition of “trans” includes post-operative, pre-operative ”transsexuals” but also part-time cross-dressers and those who have no intention of any physical changes.

Burns is a little bit coy about the reasons men don the garb associated with women and the nature of the pleasure this yields. Here is a little bit about Transvestic Fetishism, a paraphilia according to the Diagnostic Manual version 5. (It has now been renamed ”transvestic disorder”). As you can see men get sexually aroused by wearing women’s garments.

What I found interesting is that man with autogynephilia will take up hobbies they associate with the female sex. One such is knitting! I can think of two prominent TRAs who have taken up the hobby. Our politicians rank men, with a sexual fetish for being women, higher up in the ”woman” stakes than actual women!

Mis-Gendering

There follows an emotive section on the pain of being misgendered which will be received as a ”body blow to everything she is trying to achieve” . They so clearly want “mis-gendering” i.e. correctly sexing, to be an actual crime. It is already treated as a hate crime in the U.K but in other jurisdictions it is an actual crime. This is from New York:

Not a mental illness

The policy is keen to deny that believing you were born with the brain of the opposite sex is not a mental illness. This recurs throughout the document.

The document does concede that people with mental disorders can mistake themselves as ”trans”, they are not to be confused with Christine who is ”true trans”, of course. There is a lot of shame involved in autogynephilia hence the invention of ”transgender” which legitimises men with a fetish.

Third Genders.

Burns also makes reference to the way other cultures have accommodated, usually males, who don’t conform to societal expectations for their sex. They are usually gay men. (This may very well be a benign accommodation in some cultures but certainly the use of young boys, as Hjira, in India, appears to facilitate their sexual exploitation by older males). It is misleading, and cultural appropriation, to use these arguments to claim legal accommodations for heterosexual males with sexual paraphilia. The claim there is a ”widely understood” acceptance there are more than two sexes is also wishful thinking, in 2008. Even in 2022 it is only dominant in our political and media elite, it is a luxury belief.

The law

Where the policy covers the law it is deliberately obtuse and contradictory. In this section it acknowledges the Genuine Occupational Requirements that allow sex specific recruitment. Thus males, can be, legally, excluded from certain roles and spaces. An example would be a rape crisis centre for female victims of male, sexual violence. Burns is keen to stress that these exceptions are ”limited” and ”rare”.

The policy even implies that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate is not covered by these exceptions. In a section about allowing the exclusion of someone “undergoing” gender reassignment Burn’s acknowledges an employer could exclude someone from shared accommodation.

But then adds this caveat.

The Gender Recognition Act is bad law. There have not been enough legal challenges to test its application, in respect of single sex spaces. However, it is legal to exclude any male, even with a GRC, from, for example, becoming a counsellor to female rape victims. The cynic in me says this legislation was drafted in a purposefully muddled way to allow activists, like Burns, to exploit the confusing, contradictory, wording.

Sexual Orientation v Gender Identity Group

While reading this document I came across a reference to a group I had not encountered before.

I cannot find details of who sat on this group but they certainly accessed quite a lot of government funding. This is from Hansard: 👇

I would love to know more about this group. Was Burns a member? Who were the gay men /Lesbians in that group? Did any of them object to same sex attraction being redefined as ”same gender” attraction and did they anticipate the emergence of male “lesbians” and female ”gay men”?

IRAN

Membership of SOGIAG interests me because I would like to know if any of them realised there may be a conflict of interest between the G and the T? Which gay men is Burns talking to such that nobody picked him up on this section?

For Burns to include this without any reference to the consequences visited on Gay men, in particular, takes my breath away. (This also happens to Lesbians).

Real Life Experience (RLE) & Woman-Fishing

Burns goes into some detail about how a man convinces the Gender Recognition Panel they are eligible for a GRC. This overlaps with any attempt to get the surgery known as ”Sexual Reassignment Surgery”. The panel requires evidence that the applicant has been “living as a woman”. All of this is at the “pre-op” stage so here is Burns stating that they should be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex. Women are therefore needed to ”validate” this ”identity” ; used as sort of spiritual midwives for the “woman” trapped in a man’s body. Burns proceeds to give examples such as not requiring any male, if he does not acknowledge his sex, to be placed in a side room at a hospital. Instead the women are to be forced to perform ”sisterhood”.

None of the men passing these laws, or the women, have thought of how offensive this is, to women. Imagine if Rachael Dolezal had been able to compel the Black community to accept her, while wearing Black Face? Why is men performing caricatures of women, some hyper-sexualised, not called out as “ Woman-Fishing” ?

For those of you unaware there is a backlash against, usually celebrities, for adopting a presentation that suggests a racial identity other than their own. Exhibit A :

Final Thoughts.

As far back as 2008 activists liked to pretend a public debate on this attack on women’s rights had taken place.

Only a trans person is able to describe their lived experience but a male should be trusted when he claims to speak as a “woman” with ”lived experience”.

I do agree with Burns here 👇. Surgery doth not a woman make:

I have left much out because it has been covered by other guidance in this series. Full document included 👆in case anyone feels the need to highlight some of the other egregious statements in this policy. We have created, yet another, sacred caste. It is not going well for women, the gay community and the safeguarding of children.

If you are able to support my research here is a way. My content will remain free.