"Like a snowball: the growth and impact of the gender critical movement in the UK" - if you wanted a very good reason to never give Amnesty a penny, this is it. But a lot of people will read and believe.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/like-a-snowball/

"Over the past ten years the situation for LGBTI+ people in the UK has deteriorated. In particular there has been an organised backlash against trans people’s rights starting in 2017/18. This report maps the gender critical movement in the UK and the role of the media in normalising anti-trans rhetoric.

Our research shows that an organised gender critical movement emerged as a response to proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act in 2017/18 and has gained huge influence in public and political discourse since then.

Between January 2020 and April 2025, media coverage of issues about trans people has been excessively high compared to the size of the trans population, their role in society, and public interest in these topics.

Four outlets examined in the research published 17,000 articles between January 2020 and April 2025, an average of 9 articles per day and ‘gender critical’ framing became common over this period of time while the voices of trans people have been almost completely absent."

Thanks for that.....though this article seems mainly to do with accusations of nationalism and racism ( rather than 'rainbow' issues). He would certainly have referred to himself as a patriot, and came from a military background

“Most media reports about trans people have a negative sentiment, while trans people are hardly seen in stories. When they do appear, it is as criminals or murder victims”

That’s a very selective filter they’ve applied there. And murder victims (plural)? I can only remember one in the UK, as horrific and unjustifiable as it was.

I don't think they did - I think there'd have been a major scandal if they had done. Amnesty always seemed a pretty decent organisation until the trans madness took hold.

Ok, I'll be honest, I haven't read the document.
Does it say anywhere in it how the LGB part of LGBTI+ has been negatively affected or is it all just about the T?

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tjfzis/new_research_exposing_the_antitrans_networks/

They do realise that eventually the entire general public will mean when they say 'anti-trans' they actually mean 'women having rights too'?

The 'network' of people cruelly and maliciously.... protecting women's rights, access and equality from insane activists, who can't see women as actually human. Dysfunction on crack.

They really are 'Am nasty' these days.

Just like UN women really are unwomen.

Sorry for the AI Analysis but it's clear:

No, not really.
The document uses “LGBTI” as a wrapper, but the actual argument is overwhelmingly about T, especially trans women, legal gender recognition, gender reassignment, gender-affirming healthcare, trans media coverage, and attitudes towards trans people.
Its own executive summary gives the game away. It says the briefing examines gender critical actors and that their objectives are “in relation to trans people”; the media analysis is about coverage “about trans people”; and it says “the voices of trans people” are absent.

Where LGB appears, it is mostly in three ways:

1. LGB Alliance is treated as part of the problem
2. It names LGB Alliance as one of the best-known gender-critical organisations, then later labels some groups as “so-called ‘LGB’ organisations”. That is not evidence of LGB people being harmed. It is Amnesty casting LGB sex-based advocacy as suspicious.
3. Lesbians are mentioned only because gender-critical people raise them
4. The report says GC actors argue that “gender ideology” pushes gender non-conforming young people, “in particular masculine lesbians”, to think they are men and transition. Amnesty does not investigate whether that concern is valid. It simply presents it as part of the GC worldview.
5. Same-sex attraction appears as background, not harm evidence
6. The report notes that media uses of “sex” included terms like “same”, “attraction”, “sexuality” and “gay”, but this is just corpus-analysis detail, not an argument that lesbians, gay men or bisexuals have been negatively affected by gender-critical campaigning.

The closest it gets to an LGB harm claim is very thin. It cites a general government LGBT survey saying many respondents experienced harassment or violence, but that is a broad LGBT figure, not a specific claim about the L, G or B parts being harmed by gender-critical activism. Immediately afterwards it turns back to attitudes towards trans people. So the clean answer is: No. It does not meaningfully show how lesbians, gay men or bisexuals have been negatively affected. It mostly uses “LGBTI” for moral weight, then argues almost entirely about trans rights. When actual LGB organisations appear, they are treated as enemies of the report’s preferred politics rather than as LGB people with sex-based rights and interests of their own.

Specifically the "rights" they are asking for are...

• Self-ID legal recognition: the claimed right to have the state treat someone as the opposite sex by declaration, including where sex matters in law.
• Access to women’s single-sex spaces: the claimed right for trans-identifying males to enter female-only spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons, wards and sport.
• Control over sex-based language: the claimed right not to be described by biological sex, even in legal, safeguarding, medical or political contexts.
• Gender-affirming healthcare, including for children: the claimed right to puberty blockers, hormones or transition pathways despite weak evidence and safeguarding concerns.
• Gender-identity education in schools: the claimed right for children to be taught contested gender ideology as fact under “inclusive RSE”.
• Favourable media framing: the claimed right to have journalists treat gender identity claims as settled truth and frame gender-critical views as anti-rights extremism.

Weeeelll, I know opinions have always varied. There have been many areas/issues that AI have been criticised on by various people.

I used to think that was inevitable for an organisation working in highly contested areas and the political arena, but these days ... I wonder.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/25/gita-sahgal-amnesty-international

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/magazine/why-amnesty-international-is-calling-for-decriminalizing-sex-work.html

I think we're not far from that point, tbh.

Good point - and all this stuff (decriminalising sex work, letting men into women's spaces) is all of a piece.

This is just a rehash of the tactics showcased in the Dentons report isn't it? Transactivists got used to secret privileged access to politicians, the media, organisations and business and being able to impose their niche dangerous demands on an unconsenting public. Once the appalling consequences emerged they're now subject to democratic scrutiny.

The whining is epic and enabled by far too many useful idiots.

Not very erudite but I have nothing much to say other than what a lot of absolute shite.

while the voices of trans people have been almost completely absent.
😂😂😂
A demonstration of a significant degree of isolation from reality if ever I saw one.

by asking gotcha questions
Any difficult question has now become a 'gotcha question'. Once upon a time a 'gotcha' was a planned trap, and perhaps not a particularly honest one - often used for e.g. cornering a politician with questions designed to make them unambiguously condemn, say, taking backhanders, before presenting them with evidence of their own grift. Or - the really unscrupulous version - asking some questions, guiding someone down a track with them saying, 'Well, to a point I agree, but with XVZ caveats... No, that's not precisely how I'd phrase it...' before metaphorically kicking them in the shins by accusing them of saying things they hadn't really said: 'So, Mr Smith, you admit that...' when Mr Smith hadn't really done so.

But yesterday I saw a complaint about how a podcast host asked 'gotchas' of people he had somehow lured onto his podcast who had a different viewpoint from him (his views are no secret, and are easy to find). From my POV he'd have a robust but very civil discussion, and then say, 'Okay, so we have established that you think A, B and C. But what about D, E and F [which said host has wanged on about for years] - surely these cannot be ignored?' And that's apparently a 'gotcha': a reality-based question which you might have expected, but to which you have no reply other than flannel.

Saying, 'Oh, he asked me a gotcha question!' is a way of saying, 'The person who was asking me questions is very mean, not entirely honest, and should be ignored!'

Waily-flipping-wail. Without robust, open, honest debate, we'll never move forward.

Please excuse me for a long while whilst I go and retrieve my eyeballs from whence they have rolled.

That's what so much of the press is these days. It's not there any longer to report stories with a moderate spin in favour of the stance of the proprietor. It's there to try and tell us how to think.

I have never liked being told what to think. It's probably the main reason why I stopped listening to Radio 4.

Over the past ten years the situation for LGBTI+ people in the UK has deteriorated.
Has the situation for LGB people and people with DSDs deteriorated over the last decade? Or is this just the usual forced teaming?

My thoughts exactly.

They were called the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties) then. And they did support PIE.

Thanks for the link, unfortunately I didn't get through most of it, it was a whole load of politically motivated codswallop. I stopped listening to this organisation years ago, it is a shame because they did once do a valuable job of bringing so many of the world's injustices to light.

Did it say anything about men in women's jails or men in women's sport ?

Or was it just one long 'trans' diatribe. There was a thread a short while ago about an article that stated that the UK was the 2nd worst in the world for 'trans' right's, I wonder if this complete load of twaddle was used by that article.

So they just want a few little things…to be allowed - nay, welcomed - wherever they want, alter the English language, indoctrinate and medicalise children, have unnecessary drugs and cosmetic procedures on demand, for free, and have the media act as their propaganda arm? Jeez, what are we making such a fuss about?

No, that was what became Liberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(advocacy_group)

There have been lots and lots of areas where Amnesty have been criticised, those are just two that are relevant to this board.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools Sorry for the AI Analysis

Don't apologise! it was very useful, and much less biased than the Amnesty article.
Who'da thought we'd get to a point where AI as in Artificial Intelligence would be fairer to women that AI as in Amnesty International?