A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK says Amnesty who claim over 50% are Gender Critical groups

Unless a fiasco in Iran is what they wanted... 😉

Agree.

For one thing, if a 'Big Cheese' were successfully pulling Trump's strings, they wouldn't have ended up with the fiasco in Iran.

If you're interested in how political influence works in the EU and internationally from a womens / GC perspective then try Roisin Michaux's substack "Peaked" https://www.peaked.news/

It's quite an eye-opener and very funny in places. I'm still processing her interview for "You Must Be Some Kind of Therapist" (thanks to the MNetter who recommended it, sorry I can't find your post just now)

No, there is no single Big Cheese. There are just a lot of vested interests all trying to exert influence for different reasons, often pulling in different directions, sometimes making alliances. Bloom County used to be very funny about political influence in the USA. Remember Opus the Penguin and the NRA?

That's really interesting! It makes me wonder, rich as he is, who is Trump's Puppetmaster? He's not smart enough to come up with half of what he advocates on his own. I know he has donors, and supporters, and acolytes, and cronies. But who's the Big Cheese actually pulling his strings?

Reminds me of that scene in Contact where
*SPOILER ALERT**

Ellie finds out that there was a secret space program, funded by the obscenely rich guy living in space.

*

I'm imagining there is a guy like that, somewhere, who knows where all the bodies are buried, has more money than God, and is telling Trump what to think and do.

I also no longer donate to large charities. Aside from the fact that I believe most of the money goes on salaries, I just don't trust what they do with the rest of it. So I focus on small, local charities.

I'm incredibly wary of the big donors like Bill Gates and Coefficient Giving (set up by one of the FB co-founders and his wife). They can (and do) give megabucks to charities that campaign for the causes that they think are important, and they can do this via numerous of mid-sized and small charities, which might either fade away or have minimal impact without their $$££$$. This gives the impression that there are lots of committed grassroots activists with a mass of loyal funders, which in turn puts pressure on politicians to pay attention to whatever the issue is, because voters. (I think this is called astroturfing - it looks like grass(roots) but it isn't really.)

They can also exert their influence in other ways. Coefficient Giving, in the days when it was called Open Philanthropy, had a deal with the Guardian which ran into the hundreds of thousands of pounds over several years (I can't remember the details off-hand) to engage in investigations and publish articles about farm animal welfare. Firstly, blink and you'd miss the fact the article was sponsored with a particular aim in view and thus wasn't likely to be entirely balanced and fair. Secondly, it's highly unlikely that this agreement didn't have an impact on wider editorial decisions. Thirdly, while farm animal welfare sounds like a good cause, the people funnelling in the money had shares in fake meat companies... It took me a bit of digging a few years ago to find all this out.

Essentially they're using their immense wealth to push issues in which they have a personal concern, rather than sullying their hands with nasty politics. I suppose to an extent this has always happened, but philanthropists used to fund things like hospitals and museums and village halls and the public knew who they were and what they were doing.

And yes, I know JKR funds GC causes, but she's completely upfront about it. She's not sponsoring articles with a little logo at the top. She's out there on Twix, taking the heat.

This funding of significant social campaigns around contentious issues by a handful of individuals in a less-than-obvious way - trans, persuading us all to go veggie, whatever - really bothers me. Very wealthy people are able to influence the political process from the sidelines, and in countries where they are not resident, whilst also making it look as if it's ordinary journalists and concerned citizens who are pushing those issues.

It makes me very reluctant now to believe what I read, or to trust large charities.

I am hopeful. These things have been going on quietly and under the radar for a long time and now they're being painfully hauled out into the light of day.

I don't know if it will all be fine. It's not good news if big reputable charities have been misusing their reputations to further social or political goals that conflict with their stated aims. It's not good news when big reputable charities stop being trustworthy, and it's not good news when people lose their trust in these big reputable charities. And it's not going to be effortless or painless - there will be some failures and bad news as well as successes and good news.

But the sooner it's out in the open and cleaned up the better.

The affluent single male in his 20s and 30s is the advertiser's cash cow.

Advertisers, yes. Charities, no. OK, at one time gay men poured vast quantities of money and effort into AIDS. But that's long past and "trans" doesn't have the same urgency, most gay men aren't GC and many are sexist but they don't think "trans" has anything to do with them either. The big charities' cash cow from individuals is the same as always. It's us older women. Oxfam's loss will be a donkey sanctuary's gain. And Amnesty's loss will be a GC crowdfunder's gain.

Though having said that - the real cash cow for big charities is government initiatives and international funds and the huge foundations (like Bill Gates or George Soros). That's where the biggest fight for influence - and cash! - will be. And that's why Amnesty matters.

You are panicking.
It will be fine.

Good enough for me! Thanks @RedToothBrush

And rightly so.

All [proper] women's groups are GC, but not all GC groups are women's groups.

I would not now, and do not, support any of the big charities like Oxfam, Amnesty, etc. But that is entirely owing to having heard about them via MN. I'm not sure about the wider population, but I guess it depends partly on how big a story this becomes. I don't suppose it's going to push "Andy Burnham is terrible" off the headlines.

Exactly.

Amnesty’s annual report for the business/operations arm said that last quarter recruitment of new members was lower than the amount of lapsed memberships, and they had to get a loan from the charitable trust side.

Interesting. I thought I was in a tiny minority in having lost faith in the large charities because of so many things so many of them had done wrong, starting with the amount they spent on trying to get me to take out standing orders in their favour (which I won't do because I am not rich enough to risk running out of money in the bank at the end of the month) and which I always felt could have been better spent on whatever their charitable objectives were. I do still support local charities: care homes, shelters, food banks.... So yes, I suppose those small charities are competition as far as the large ones are concerned.

For the record, Amnesty was one of the first to lose my support, with Oxfam a close second (reluctantly, because my mother was there when it started), and then Shelter.

You are panicking.

It will be fine.

They are more likely to destroy themselves in the process.

There's been a lot in the last ten years about the processes and practices of big charities. There's already political attention by some quarters to increase accountability in the sector as it's seen not as working for those it's supposed to help but as a lobbying vehicle for the left wing.

The right wing want much closer scrutiny as a result and the left will have to enable this or risk losing ground to the right.

In other words these charities also sit on the edge of the tectonic plates of the culture war.

This has been going on a while and I think this is one of the reasons they've aggressively gone after smaller charities too - because they see them as competition.

There's also a huge grassroots reaction to all these big charity scandals too. There's a reluctance to continue to support them.

If you do a straw poll on MN about 'do you donate to big charities still?' I bet you'll get a lot of people saying yes but a lot actively and deliberately saying they are boycotting and they often have for a while.

Having a look around the subject you'll quickly find articles on this theme from about 2016 onwards. (Note the timeline is parallel to the rise of trans activism and omni-cause thinking).

Also note the biggest donors to charity are not the lefties in their teens and twenties. Not by a long long shot. The charities currently pushing all this crap have cash flow issues in common. Amnesty's recent push for male subscribers will be about money. The affluent single male in his 20s and 30s is the advertiser's cash cow.

This is why women suddenly are further down the agenda. It's all about self preservation and revenue generated not stated aims.

Really don't just take my word on this - there's criticism coming from the left grassroots and the more conservative but charity supporting centre right (so by definition definitely not far right). Go and read up on it. It's mirroring all the other crap going on.

Yep - any group supporting original bio women are by definition GC. Based on Yougov polls a
more than 90% of the UK population are sex realists who mostly have no idea that they’re considered bigots as a result

I've been hearing more on the grapevine about Amnesty UK - some strong suggestions that they have been working with major funders to undermine actual women's groups in the UK for a long time. Would be an extraordinary win for the misogynists if, after us getting clear M/F definitions from the Supreme Court, a reassertion of sex-based rights in the Equality Act, and winning a ton of related court cases, they destroy all those listed in their evidence-free report by ensuring that they don't get any money. The only ones left standing would be the handmaidens. Please can someone tell me I'm panicking unnecessarily and all will be well?😥😫😳

My point was that they're groups supporting women.

Not that they're GC groups.

Yes AFAIK it’s correct.

But no Muslim groups, is that correct?

I hadn't realised until today that nearly half of the other groups (along with Beira's place) that were listed on Amnesty's anti-rights report were women's groups.

I hope the Charity Commission will be highlighting this in their escalation.

@Seethlaw thank you for your posts, I often learn new things from you.

European Network of Migrant Women are wonderfully clear about who/what women are - and why that really matters. They are gloriously straight-talking - on the trans issue but also on surrogacy, prostitution, male violence, institutional racism etc. And radical in their proposed solutions (not quite chop off their balls but you can hear the subtext). I imagine their work with migrant women keeps them very aware of the real meaning of intersectional vulnerabilities.

But the point they are making about funding is really significant to the Amnesty discussion. There is no doubt that this appalling report will frighten away the very few funders who focus on women's rights, or on LGBwithout-the-T rights. At a time when funding is being severely cut back, why would you take a risk with an organisation that Amnesty have branded right-wing and anti-rights. Not worth the hassle. I'm genuinely worried about the impact this will have on UK organisations.