Amnesty - “no such thing as a biologically male/female body”

[NellieEllie]

A week ago I saw that Amnesty had responded to a complaint about the open letter signed in Ireland and in that response had said the above.
I wrote to Amnesty as a long time supporter and queried whether this was their official stance, and have today received a reply.
This is an extract - see esp para 3.

“We stand over the letter, which we signed to stand in solidarity with the trans community and against those spreading hate.

There are attempts to decontextualise certain phrases used in the letter in a way that misleads and confuses people, which is a common tactic used against many of our human rights campaigns. For example, the letter asks for media and politicians to not give legitimacy to those spreading vitriol or misinformation. This is being framed as a call to take away their political representation, which anyone reading the letter will clearly see is not what it means.

Another example is the letter’s referring to those ‘defending biology’. Allowing self-determination of our bodies is a basic principle of feminism and human rights. There is no such thing as a ‘biologically female/male body’ - a person’s genitalia doesn’t determine their gender. Those that seek to exclude and disenfranchise groups of people, or force people into one gender or their other on that basis, are working against basic human rights principles.

We feel much of the current media reporting and conversations on social media with regards to self-identification is misguided. Restricting the rights of transgender people, and omitting the use of inclusive language will not advance or protect women’s rights.“

I was hoping that it was a case of an earnest woke teen manning the social media account, but clearly not.
How can they promote such doublespeak? Their last magazine was full of references to women in developing countries - do they REALLY think that there is no such class? “A person’s genitalia does not determine gender” is a separate statement - but they are conflating the two and specifically denying biology.

I am so wearied by this nonsense.

Any 'social justice' movement which isn't based soundly in realities is surely futile.

And isn't that what we're seeing?

But, still, it forms a community, and if there are enough like-minded people who want to get together to create institutions to their Woke taste, as liberals you can't really say "no". Freedom of assembly/religion. You can't force people to pay attention to reality.

The problem is imposing this on everyone in the institutions that are supposed to serve all, soaking up general funding. Secularism. They can do their thing, but they can't make anyone else.

isn't what's needed a non-trivial social justice informed by and underpinned by objective truth?

Yes - I'm not saying the "truth" university wouldn't think about "social justice". It's just that truth would be paramount - any social justice couldn't just be a campaigning ideology, it would have to actually permit questioning, be prepared to argue its case and not try to cast out heretics.

The third comparator in the talk was a "Christian" university (apparently a thing in the US?) Christians aren't banned from non-Christian universities, and those universities might still study Christianity, or even follow some Christian principles. But Christians just wouldn't get to control the overall institution or have veto over anything. They only get to do that in their own establishments, which people can choose to go to.

Fed up with this rubbish now.

Well done for those with the energy to fight this crap

Just read the link, I didn't know about amnesty and the Russian chap.

Wtaf? What are they thinking?

If they agree that people whose views they don't agree with can and should be detained, then that makes them as bad as all the regimes and groups that they used to fight against.

So aside from deserting women they are also deserting political prisoners if they have views that amnesty disagree with?

Yowzers that's huge.

These larger and often well established and often excellent charities have all turned into orgs with business models, run by business type people. It's hardly surprising that they have totally lost sight of their original purposes.

These larger and often well established and often excellent charities have all turned into orgs with business models, run by business type people. It's hardly surprising that they have totally lost sight of their original purposes.

Yes, I think this is a sort of natural progression. People with a particular passion start a charity, work hard, raise money and profile, establish recognition as a leader in their field, then the career execs move in, demand high salaries, and lose the plot as they jump on the latest wokey bandwagon, destroying all the good work that went before.

Is it a variation of the Three Generation trap aka the Rags to riches to rags again in three generations thing?

This saying is a famous one in Chinese culture and refers not only to monetary wealth, but more generally towards family fortunes. ... Namely, that in three generations, a family or dynasty will have run its course. The wealth (be it money, power, or influence) of a family can rarely last past three generations.

(The first generation in a family makes money (goes from rags to riches); the second generation holds or keeps the money; and the third generation squanders or loses the money (and so goes back to rags).)