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.

They've already got that, surely. And the grand-daughter of the founder saying she wouldn't give them a penny wasn't a good look either.

Apology received by Trans Widows Voices and Children of Transitioners. We note their refusal to set out their methodology.

Still insisting they support the rights of women and girls and trans people. You would think that a human rights organisation might be aware that some rights conflict and that they’d need to reflect on this to develop a reasonable position when that happens.

Yes - and insisting at the end of all these apology letters that transpeople are 'marginalised' - that's the flaw at the centre of AmnestyUK's and others' obsession with the trans issue: they have declared transpeople as marginalised, and committed themselves to fighting for trans rights, without ever explaining what that 'marginalisation' consists of, and what rights trans people do not already have.

'Being marginalised' is a example of the big factual voids at the centre of trangenderism, the biggest one being that humans can't change their sex, so what exactly is 'transitioning' anyway??

A house built on sand.

Yes, but there is a difference between rolling your eyes because they share a stupid meme and believing that they are fundamentally incompetent.

I was listening to a podcast about Syria and Assad recently and Amnesty were mentioned as one of the credible organisations reporting on torture.

Would they be credible now?

I would love it if Tim Farron turned up and asked why she thinks the all party parliamentary Christian group he chairs is 'anti-rights'.

This made me laugh

Amensty still have some credibility for me on many issues, but it's unethical for Amnesty to misuse that credibility to promote a specific political agenda. They should not be agreeable to one of their "representatives" using their nametp promote her personal agendas. And Amnesty should stick to talking about human rights abuses. So I think the first question for her need to be, what have US Christian organisations actually done that is a human rights abuse? And if it's just camapigning for a particular viewpoint, then one could ask her the same question about the ACLU which has been merrily campaiging to keep abusive men in women's prisons.

Just reading more from Maugham

"I have seen this coming for some months and I have been asking some bigger funders to fund us to work in this space – we know how the playbook plays out because we have seen it used on the trans community – but we have not succeeded in persuading those funders."

You can't fault it as satire.

I particularly like "we know how the playbook plays out" as though racism is an emerging problem that can be understood in the context of Maugham's experience.

I have heard this described as St George in retirement syndrome. You slay the big dragon, but now you're out of work, so you run around finding smaller dragons to kill, until you're chasing 6" lizards and looking a complete idiot.

The problem here was not just that they were promoting a specific political agenda, but that the quality of the research was really, really bad.

[Amnesty International] still have some credibility for me on many issues

Why? The lack of research, the lack of process, the lack of review, the overreach - all the things AI demonstrated here are most unlikely to exist solely in relation to this one issue.

It’s easy to say “oh, I still think Amnesty is mostly credible” but it starts to look like like “I believe Amnesty as long as they promote causes I’m already in agreement with”. If they’re only mostly credible, what other sectors are infected?

The power of Amnesty International as a name was that even if you were on the opposite side of a cause the organization espoused, you would sit up and take a look; because if the great Amnesty International said something was bad there must be something behind it.

This and the Navalny affair really opened my eyes to AI.

Research? who needs research? When it comes to attacking sex realist/gender critical groups, there's no need to do research, is there? Just accusing them all of being hate-fuelled transphobes will do, that's 'The Truth' in TRA-world, that's all that matters .

The worrying thing is that given the post-factual environment we are in, even if AIUK issued scores of grovelling apologies and appeared at the door of each of the offended groups in sackcloth and ashes and bearing wheelbarrows-ful of branded teacakes, it will remain 'The Truth' in TRA-word that these groups are hate-fuelled and transphobic, just because..

What's the point in researching the facts? Who cares about the facts?
😡

That is an absolutely glorious analogy! Thank you.

The power of Amnesty International as a name was that even if you were on the opposite side of a cause the organization espoused, you would sit up and take a look; because if the great Amnesty International said something was bad there must be something behind it

Exactly - and even if you didn't understand the ins and outs of a particular situation (e.g. the politics of Syria), you could (I thought) trust that Amnesty were reliable witnesses.

Now any dictator can just point to the quality of their research and just shrug.

I find it all rather sad and depressing.

Now any dictator can just point to the quality of their research and just shrug.

I am more inclined to give the dictator the benefit of the doubt, these days. It used to be that AI’s arguments started with “whatever your politics, this behaviour is objectively wrong”. Now they’re into politics.

Well yes - but if Amnesty isn't doing that work, who is?

Nobody, clearly. And it is also clear that if Amnesty is still trying to do it, their proclamations may be subject to grave doubt about their accuracy, and therefore be worse than useless.

Yes, exactly.

Amnesty’s approach to transgender issues illustrates an institutional knee jerk response to supporting ‘the underdog’ (the marginalised). They just can’t stop themselves. It’s very simplistic policy analysis because the world has become more messy and complex so it’s less clear as to who gets to occupy the underdog space anymore. However, IMO, organisations like Amnesty and the BBC who have always thought of themselves as supporting the Davids cannot move away from their position that the underdog is always good. And TRAs have been extremely swift to capitalise on that thinking.

Somewhat tangential, but I think not entirely irrelevant in this case: "supporting the Davids" may well be exactly what they think they're doing - but that doesn't mean what most people think it does.

David was small, but that didn't make him the underdog. Goliath was big, but size is irrelevant when you're up against a high-powered, accurate distance weapon. In technology-gap and chance-of-winning terms, that fight was roughly equivalent to putting a medieval knight up against a 20th century sniper.

But what does it say about the Lib Dems that they invited her?

I think that I know the answer. It says that the Lib Dems are a bunch of virtue-signalling knob jockeys.

And out of touch with the wider public?

Maybe I'm naive and I certainly don't know how Amnesty really works internally, but I imagine it as "old Amnesty" and "new Amnesty". My mental image is that there are a lot of people in Amnesty who are still doing still doing "old Amnesty" - the old anti-torture and prisoners of conscience stuff, mostly politically neutral, based on facts and evidence. And then there must be people doing the "new Amnesty" - the political, speculative and "most oppressed". But maybe the "new" has taken over.

You may very well say that. I couldn't possibly comment.