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.

But a lot of their supporters would have been putting blue and yellow frames around their social media profiles. I absolutely see Ukraine as omnicause but maybe there is a divide.

Obviously the left have always supported communist uprisings and revolutions etc but that wasn’t what the Ukraine situation was, Ukraine are clearly the victims and Russia the invading aggressors.

There has always been cross party support for Ukraine. It's one of the few issues that isn't politically divisive in the UK.

Also don’t some of the same people wang on about Russian bots swaying elections etc?

Support for Ukraine from the Reform UK Party Ltd has been lukewarm. Farage is a Putin apologist & blamed NATO for the Russian invasion.

Haven’t read quite all the way through today’s posts. Has this been shared yet?

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2026/07/13/amnesty-international-uk-rights-and-wrongs/

About half way through, beginning with the section “Related research and statements by Amnesty” they explain that the recent report was not an accidental one-off by a random person who shouldn’t have posted it, but rather is part of an ongoing Amnesty campaign.

Totally agree, except for all the other times I’ve thought “This will get people off the fence”. There’s an effect for sure, but my god it’s slow and painful.

Ukraine was seen by many on the left as a bastion of far right wingers. There were a lot of people glad when Russia moved in.

And Putin isn’t?

Do ‘the left’ still think Russia=USSR?

Exactly, definitely a split as the more moderate left and centrists definitely would have sided with Ukraine and bemoan Russian influence in politics. As pp said, it’s like these people think it’s the Cold War still.

I think it's only a particular section of 'the left' - we still have some sensible politicians on the left and the right.

However, for e.g. Corbyn

America + Western Europe = baddies

Everyone else = goodies. If sometimes they act like baddies it is important to remember that it is not their fault, but the fault of the western imperialists.

Then there is Farage who I think is more motivated by money than anything else and a gang of ideological right wingers in America who believe that Putin has every right to invade whoever he wants.

So you can be pro-Russia for both anti-imperialist and pro-imperialist reasons.

There was a lot of propaganda back then that Ukraine was full of right wing Nazis. There were some very visible right wing groups and a lot of people over stated their importance. Putin said he was invading to rid the county of these right wingers. And for some Westerners, that sounded reasonable.

It's not just the Left, though, is it? Seems to me a lot of the Spectator/Unherd/Medium people have always been unenthusiastic about Ukraine, and seem to believe that we should have done what they wanted us to do with Covid: do fuck all, and let it all happen.

Boris Johnson was enthusiastically pro Ukraine, more so than a significant part of the left.

As for Covid, as someone who strongly supported the original 3 week lockdown, and indeed the initial prolongations, I remember reading just before it all kicked off, in a Spectator type article, a warning that it would be a lot easier to declare a lockdown than to lift it, and that the damage done was not being considered - I remember it because it seemed like rubbish to me at the time. But in fact it was true.

So I think that’s not a very accurate description, or perhaps it just wasn’t as clear a right/left divide as in the US.

Well, once again, we are not talking about the US.

I think it is important to point out, as often as it might be relevant, that Beira's Place is NOT "anti-trans"; its pro-woman stance includes trans men who need it. Just not men who are trans, and seem to have access to all the other rape crisis centres and therefore don't need one that is for women and trans men only.

Well, it's all about making it all about JKR (clickbait), isn't it? But it won't end well for them.

Most people I have seen who take this approach seem to be doing so for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological ones. They don't think Ukraine can prevail, and that if they keep trying with the support of the West, both will end up compromised.

I don't disagree with that. It's a poker game, isn't it and the West blinked first, and Putin won. So I guess the cynics who thought so were proved right.

Can anyone answer me, have Sex Matters ever produced a “toolkit” for people to complain about celebrating Pride in schools? Because that is what Chiara Capraro specifically complains about at 1.03 of the Guilty Feminist podcast. I’m asking because I don’t know, but it doesn’t really sound like one of their campaigns to me, or their focus.

It comes in answer to an audience question about Pride and how some areas are claiming that they can’t allow Pride because of “religious freedom” (I’ll hazard a guess that the religion they’ll be concerned with won’t be Christianity but no mention of anything like that of course). So Chiara then says:

“Yeah I mean, you know, the realm of relationships and sex education. And just like diversity in schools is one of the big interests of ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom- US Christian Right group) and others you have organisations like, you know, I don’t know, Sex Matters for example.

They have all these, like, toolkits for parents to complain to your school if you know, they have a trans inclusive policy or they want to do Pride. And yeah, so I think, you know, what they’re good at doing is to kind of make things sound like, organic.

And I think that, yeah, it is part of their agenda. And again, it’s about having conversations like, I don’t know, like where do the other parents hear these things from. Like, is it really an issue or it’s just kind of hyped because sometimes it’s, it’s not necessarily something that a lot of people think. But then schools are risk averse and then, you know, you go into like a scenario that’s not, that’s not good.

They then decide that they can produce their own toolkits to defeat the wrongthink Sex Matters ones.

Deborah Francis White: So maybe get the toolkit that Amnesty’s got and go in and do the same thing and say here’s the counter to that, that our children are being deprived. It’s not like anybody’s saying, oh, why don’t we show the children a bunch of sexual positions. (isn’t it, Proud Trust dice, anyone?)

(DFW still fighting her straw man) It’s not about that. It’s about love, and possibilities, and families looking different, which they do. It’s no good hiding that from them, also they can see that in their society.

then the other guest Alison Spittle chimes in, allegedly she’s a comedian, no comment. Ive listened to the whole podcast twice 😩 an hour and a half I’ll never get back.

AS: I suppose like a thing though, I’m worried about, is like on the left we’re always like on the defence. It’s like when someone brings up their religious freedom and like we were celebrating Pride for years in schools and then they bring this suddenly “our religious freedom” and then that feels hard. Like it feels like because they got the money and they’re able to go on the offence, but-

DFW: I think it’s the only way to, if someone at the school has said well it’s going to counteract religious freedom, we need to argue why it doesn’t. The freedom to be yourself is more important than anything, I think.

then she starts banging on about System 1 and 2 thinking.

So all this functions as a pretty effective smear of Sex Matters, an organisation whose focus is the sex based rights of women and girls, but also men and boys. Not a religious organisation but the way they’ve talked about it casually is like it’s a UK branch of the ADF and that’s what their listeners will think.

And DFW and her guest are complete idiots, but Capraro is there in her capacity as a director of Amnesty. It’s essentially an argument from authority.

From your transcript it seems she picked Sex Matters from her arse more or less at random.

I don’t know, I think she wanted to make that association personally.

She has mentioned Sex Matters several times on this podcast and the other one she did about this, the Bellingcat one. She doesn’t mention most of the other names.

She definitely seems to be fixated on them.