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

[IwantToRetire]

Quote:

Anti-rights actors seek a society in which women and men have fixed and distinct roles, based on what they view as ‘natural’ and ‘traditional’. These actors perceive the idea that gender is socially constructed as a threat because it suggests that gender roles can, and do, change across societies and over time. In fact, progress in the rights of women and LGBT+ people has been underpinned by changing understandings of gender and social roles.

Anti-rights actors refer to this perceived threat as ‘gender ideology’, portraying it as an attack on national traditions, family structures, marriage and religious freedom. These narratives often seek to generate fear and uncertainty and rely on misinformation or exaggerated claims.

The term ‘gender ideology’ emerged in the context of debates within international institutions, particularly the United Nations, about gender equality and sexual and reproductive rights.

In 1964, the Holy See became a Permanent Observer at the UN General Assembly, the only religious body with this status. As a permanent observer the Holy See can participate in processes at the General Assembly as well as other UN bodies. It cannot vote but it has the possibility to co-sponsor resolutions if a member state requests a vote. Although it cannot vote, the Holy See can participate in UN discussions and processes and has played an influential role in debates on women's rights and LGBT+ rights.

The term ‘gender ideology’ gained prominence in response to progress on gender equality and Cairo in 1994. These conference were a landmark moment for the global women's rights movement. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action is widely regarded as a key international framework for advancing women's rights and gender equality, and states continue to report on its implementation through the Commission on the Status of Women.

While opposition to sexual and reproductive rights predates the Beijing conference, the term ‘gender ideology’ became a particularly important response to the advances achieved there. The phrase was coined to explain the growing influence of gender equality agendas and to mobilise opposition to them.

Although the term originated in debates at the international level, it has since become a broad political narrative used by a wide range of anti-rights actors. Today, it is often used to connect campaigns against gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights, and LGBT+ rights across different countries and contexts.

From intro to report at
https://media.amnesty.org.uk/documents/Report_-_A_growing_threat__the_anti-rights_movement_in_the_UK_July_2026.pdf

See images of the list of 51 groups Amnesty is claiming are right wing.

The odd thing is that there isn't a lack of political prisoners. They aren't like other campaigning groups that achieve their aim and lose their purpose.

They just don't seem to care any more.

I cant create a cord for you if it doesn't strike a cord with you.

The wording references the many many threads on FWR about how TRAs try to slur gender critical feminism by labelling it "right wing".

But quite honestly, why get hung up on a title.

Whatever I had titled it, the important part is what you made of the Amnesty Report itself.

Amnesty who think Irish people who think gender’s a load of sexist bollocks shouldn’t be allowed to vote? That Amnesty? Still batshit then…

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-and-freedom-of-conscience-1.4419263

They couldn't do better if they were being paid by hostile states to make human rights look ridiculous.

Wait! Amnesty have put a support organisation for female rape survivors on a list of groups they deem to be far right??

id say amnesty are cunts but they have neither the depth nor the warmth

Its so odd, because TA are the ones arguing that performing 'gender' stuff like having long hair, make up etc makes you A woman, ie: dictates your sex, and are busy labelling and putting people firmly in boxes. My gc view is that gender is a construct so its all bollocks and make up doesnt define a woman 🤨

As usual based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the GC proposition.

Mainly down to a total inability to think critically and understand the actual premise of any argument. Plus most people now get their news, and hence their opinions, from social media, and very few actually go to the first source material themselves; plus people don't engage with anyone outside of their tribe in any genuine way. Group think stupidity.

Sorry, are they saying that gender critical people have problematic beliefs like men and women having traditional roles whilst supporting gender ideology that encourages young girls to transition to boys if they like short hair and cars 🫤🫤🫤

Lmao! What a joke. Why is it SO HARD for these people to have an honest, good faith look at what other people believe? (Careful though, it might start looking sensible!)

As usual based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the GC proposition.

And we've had quite enough of that over on the Tempest Tribunal thread this week!

How are these people this off

Surely that document is libelous?

Same. Spent a fair chunk of my teenage years fundraising, writing letters in support of Death Row prisoners and shelling out my Saturday job money for the stamps to post them.

They've completely and utterly beclowned themselves. Are they widely seen as still the same Amnesty, or more like Stonewall?

As Maya said on Twitter, they intervened in the SC case, and the SC were not persuaded by their arguments.

It’s good the U.K. still has some process and strong voices from women but these organisations are fighting it with male centric tactics.

And it’s just wrong, it’s a misrepresentation of what women are saying.

Very concerning.

It is so frustrating to see them completely and utterly, and I think intentionally, misunderstand every single argument gender critical people have.

None of us are set on super ultra traditional roles. I'm pretty sure most of us are on board if a man wants to wear skirts or makeup. The issue comes when a man who likes to wear skirts is told by everyone that this means he is a woman, a female, and thus can go into all women's spaces, take it forcibly change womens language, or ignore a woman's no. We have no issue with kids playing with whatever toys and wearing whatever clothes, we take issue when a girl who likes trucks and having short hair is presumed to actually be a boy, and placed on body altering medication that they are far too young to understand or consent to, which has all kinds of potential harms down the line.

TRAs are often determined to hold these views are far right, when in truth they couldn't be further from it. In the same way they tell us we're not real feminists. If you just say 'this person is bad and aligns with bad people because I say so', then you never need to stop and actually listen to the words they're saying.

I console myself with the thought that it was a very different Amnesty then.

The current version has completely lost the plot.

If you just say 'this person is bad and aligns with bad people because I say so', then you never need to stop and actually listen to the words they're saying.

It's just another tactic, isn't it, designed to confuse and redefine terms so that we don't have the words to describe what our rights are and why we need to defend them.

I often wonder how "genuinely right wing" people feel about being lumped together with a bunch of Original Lefties Who Believe In Reality? It's possible that the only thing all of us agree on is that sex is immutable.

Yess. I am pretty left wing in every political view I have aside from this one, which I would still argue is a left wing view as it's focused on women's rights, but it's the only way in which I don't 'toe the party line' and apparently makes me a bigot 🤷🏼‍♀️

TBH I'm not sure where I fit anymore! I know I'm a single-issue voter now, if needs must, and that's women's rights. Everything else is a very distant second to that. It's depressing. If we can't get the basics right, if even charities like Amnesty are finding it "cooler" or more lucrative to jump on these niche bandwagons, how will we ever tackle the really crucial stuff? I can't fathom at all the cognitive disconnect that Amnesty must have to create a stupid list like this!

Just to be clear - they intervened on the side that wanted to erode or remove women’s human rights

that would be in opposition to their own charitable objects… no idea why that intervention didn’t immediately spark a charity commission investigation…?

ETA @Ereshkigalangcleg im sure you know. Im clarifying for anyone who’s unsure/new

I think you will find that Amnesty, like Liberty (formerly NCCL) has always had a problem with women, and certainly women who are feminists. This is 16 years ago:

I was hired as the head of the Gender Unit as the organization began to develop its Stop Violence Against Women campaign. I leave with great sadness as the campaign is closed. Thousands of activists of Amnesty International enthusiastically joined the campaign. Many hoped that it would induce respect for women’s human rights in every area of social and economic life. Today, there is little ground for optimism.

The senior leadership of Amnesty International chose to answer the questions I posed about Amnesty International’s relationship with Moazzam Begg by affirming their links with him. Now they have also confirmed that the views of Begg, his associates, and his organization, Cageprisoners, do not trouble them. They have stated that the idea of jihad in self-defense is not antithetical to human rights; and have explained that they meant only the specific form of violent jihad that Moazzam Begg and others in Cageprisoners assert is the individual obligation of every Muslim.

Full statement here https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/05/13/statement-gita-sahgal-leaving-amnesty-internationa/

It’s a very good point.

Someone needs to give the folks at Amnesty a seminar in Feminism 101.

Feminists want to dismantle 'gender roles' or sex-based stereotypes. We want to contest the assumptions that being in a sexed body must determine our life patterns and behaviours, and that children should not be socialised or conditioned into patterns of behaviour (femininity and masculinity) which are limiting or oppressive.

Irritating and pointless organisation who appear to spend their time on pontificating on behalf of people who already have recourse to the law in stable societies.
I used to support them when they were trying to be a voice for the mass of people around the world in desperate situations with nothing and nobody to speak for them.
It’s just easier to focus on existing domestic squabbles than go out and campaign for those who don’t already have a voice.