Anti-gender / Anti-rights orgs pushing money in to the UK to attack women and LGBTQ rights - Amnesty

[BeeSouriante]

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/anti-rights

ADF (one of the religious right orgs that some GC groups have been in bed with), are specifically mentioned here.

I doubt that many here will be interested given that it doesn't involve deranged, seething hate of trans people, but if anything this is a 'told you so' for future me to use.

Amnesty and Stonewall have a lot in common.

Both once were brave campaigning organisations trying to change the world for the better for the disenfranchised.
Both are now bloated cash cows acting as shills for a morally bankrupt gender ideology at the expense of those they used to champion.

Attitudes like this show how ironically relevant the suffrage colours have become to women's resistance against this dangerous infringement on our liberties.

To suggest that women's fundamental right to a democratic voice should be conditional upon total capitulation to their wants is really revealing. We've come full circle, it seems, from 1928 and it's taken only just short of a century.

Note there is no similar hypothetical sanction against men who apparently pose a threat to non-masculine men in their changing facilities.

How on earth did we get here?

Spent a little while trying to track down a source report for the Amnesty conversion therapy claims

"We mapped 12 groups promoting the harmful and abusive practice of so-called 'conversion therapy,' aiming to ‘change’ or suppress people’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The spending of 4 of these surged by nearly 165%, marking the fastest growth of all categories tracked."

Was not able to find anything - anyone else found the report?

I did find some Amnesty published documents, for example

Intersectionality from a racial justice perspective: Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance - Amnesty International

Was a bit shocked to find that about 95% of the references in this paper were for to other Amnesty documents - all a bit circular.

There seemed to be a need to use numbers to backup claims,

"In the realm of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TfGBV), Amnesty International found that racialized women (Black, Asian, Latin American and mixed-race women) in UK and USA were 34% more likely than white women to be mentioned in abusive content"

but on closer inspection the numbers do not seem to be based in scientific method - e.g. the 34% above is based on anecdotal evidence

Amnesty International, “Crowdsourced Twitter study reveals shocking scale of online abuse against women”, 18 December 2018

Crowdsourced Twitter study reveals shocking scale of online abuse against women - Amnesty International

The study appears to use crowdsourcing to inspect tweets, pick out the ones with women, divide them up by race and then use AI to rate them as abusive or non-abusive.

There might be a further step where the AI scales the results of the small tweet sampling to reflect the total number of tweets posted in the UK and USA.

The exact definitions of abuse, woman and methodology are clearly very important in interpreting the study's results.

At the end of the report, there is a useful link - Click For full methodology.

This link appears broken

"We mapped 12 groups promoting the harmful and abusive practice of so-called 'conversion therapy,' aiming to ‘change’ or suppress people’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The spending of 4 of these surged by nearly 165%, marking the fastest growth of all categories tracked."

12 groups per the graphs with a "spend" of less than £500,000 by 2023
https://archive.ph/IhIBn

Thats what? 42K per group on staff rent etc

And how did 12 groups shrink to 4 for the graph analysis?

They need to show their working.

Yes @BeeSouriante
You are helpfully generating income for Mumsnet each time you post.
Do carry on.

I've given the bulb a good jiggle so hopefully that's sorted it.

Do they work in shifts or sommat?

"I've done the drive-by shit posting today, it's your turn!"

This abortion thing is definitely happening... my DD (at uni in a very university town) was held hostage in the street for about 10 minutes by an anti-abortion activist insisting on showing her very extreme and graphic photographs of "aborted foetuses". I looked them up and they are a US organisation. I'm furious that they are clearly targeting very young women students.

Yep. Once great organisations that have lost their way. 😞. The current leaders are smashing down the great work they did in the past.

Still grates how Stonewall kicked lesbians and how they reacted to the formation of LGB Alliance

We mapped 12 groups promoting the harmful and abusive practice of so-called 'conversion therapy,' aiming to ‘change’ or suppress people’s sexual orientation or gender identity

When the cheque arrives in the mail from by right wing backers, I’ll immediately cash it and take it to the bookies. I’d bet this money, and my house on one of these organisations “aiming to ‘change’ or suppress gender identity” is a group that thinks kids should get a psychotherapeutic approach instead of being sterilised with puberty blockers. You know, the sheer audacity of such an idea 🙄

'Crowdsourced Twitter study'

Good lord.

The common factor is sheer, unadulterated narcissism.

There is no handle called "@mnhq". And most of us fought hard not to have the laugh react enabled, and fought harder to have it removed. It's not necessary. Here's the laugh emojis. That's all anyone needs. 😆😂

Amnesty is one of the most hateful, evil, morally repugnant, misogynistic and dangerous organisations there is. Anything that claims rape survivors don't have a right to single sex spaces and that child and women sex trafficking is ok and good and should be legal needs to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. They are no better than the Talibanic Afghanistan.

Who was it who questioned a YouGov study recently? Bee or Aida? I think it might have been Aida. Crowdsourced twitter study is so much more reliable.

I believe it was Aida. BeeS keeps posting questionable information from questionable sources so I doubt that BeeS would humiliate BeeSelf by questioning YouGov.

The other didn't come back to explain the issues with YouGov, so I assume they were just repeating uninformed trope from the internet and couldn't formulate the reasons as to why YouGov should not be considered a good representation of the opinions of the UK population.

They did bring up questions and it is very true that questionnaires really are GIGO (garbage in / garbage out) like that ridiculous question about 'supporting trans people' which gets misinterpreted as either lesbians agree that male people are female people or women support male people's access to single sex provisions. When it doesn't mean even close to that.

So, that is also just shit interpretation by highly biased people too.

Otherwise, he didn't come back at all with anything. So I expect that would be just another piece of misinformation.

Helleofabore I assume they were just repeating uninformed trope from the internet

Here's a little game: change just one letter in this statement, making it even truer, but without changing the meaning...😃

Do I get an award for reading the thread title and immediately guessing that the poster would be one from a shortlist of likely candidates?

Or did someone else beat me to it, given that I'm rather late to the party?

🤣

Some Bees are adorable, hard working and useful to society. Other Bees ... not so much.

Buzz, buzz, buzz.

One of the claims of the Amnesty report is that, based on their crowd-sourced, AI enhanced survey,

... 1.1 million abusive or problematic tweets were sent to the women in the study across the year – or one every 30 seconds on average.

(setting aside any questions about how the data has been collected) - This sounds like this sort of tweet is very common.

The survey's data is stated as the result of combining both UK and USA information. The report does not make clear what this actually means - are we talking about tweets that originate in the UK and USA about UK and USA women? Or are we talking about abusive tweets originating from anywhere in the world about UK and USA women? Who knows?

Assuming the tweets originate in UK and USA, about 30% of adults are active on twitter. UK adult population is 55 million, USA is 260 million, giving a total of 315 million adults. 30% on twitter means that about 100 million people could be posting on twitter.

In any population (except perhaps North Korea) there will always be a small number of 'nutters' who, no matter what you do to stop them, will always be nutters.

How many nutters are there? I think everyone meets at least 1 nutter, so perhaps 1 in 1000? i.e. 0.1%

For our population of 100 million people tweeting 0.1% represents 100,000 nutters posting at any one time.

Using Amnesty's estimate of 1.1 million tweets per year gives and estimate of less than one offensive tweet per nutter per month.

This does not seem that high to me - it's just that there are so many people in the population that causes the headline figure of one tweet every 30 seconds.

If the report is actually based on tweets from the whole world about women in the USA and UK then the source population is closer to 600 million active users. This increases the nutter pool to 600,000 giving less than two offensive tweets per nutter per year

My point being - unless you have a really oppressive police state, there will always be a significant number of crimes even if the rate of offending is very low

Another way of looking at it might be using the total number of tweets per year and comparing that to Amesty's 1.1 million estimate.

Total tweets per year in USA - 200 billion, scaling this for the UK population gives a 40 billion per year estimate.

Total tweets in UK and USA per year = 240 billion.

1.1 million tweets = 0.00045% of 240 billion total tweets

Not very common, despite there being one every 30 seconds

I sometimes get invited to surveys about Scottish politics and independence, although that has either stopped/slowed down or I'm on a "she really detests the SNP" list and don't get invited anymore and sometimes, not always, you could really tell by the way questions were phrased and arranged which result they were hoping for. Surveys for propaganda use rather than real insight.

Tripe soup, anyone?