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.

Amnesty are ridiculously muddled & confused, but as we know Gender Bollocks destroys everything as it tries to warp the entire world into believing nonsensical lies & manipulations.

the list is a fine example of the wonderful women, sex realists, LGB rights activists, people protecting children & much legal knowledge. The combined knowledge is extraordinary.

I hope they join together & sue amnesty into oblivion, or at least to reality.

The Great Holiday of 2027 will be documented on the history books 😎🤣

It's fascinating to see just how many people here used to donate to Amnesty (myself included) but stopped for various reasons because of their practices. JKR used to work for them.

We are not people who believe in destroying human rights. We are some of human rights biggest champions. This is not the actions of anti-right campaigner or far right activists.

But no one seems to pause for thought on this.

I took some time this morning to read through a huge amount of the comments on Twitter.

The one that stuck me the most but has had little traction is this one:

They've also shown no interest in govt proposals to restrict trial by jury. Thought that sort of thing would be right up their street...

And this really sums it up for me. Amnesty used to go and find real injustice and threats to democracy and justice. It's what made me donate. I fell out with them because I couldn't afford to donate anymore and they spent a fortune trying to get me to start donating again - it felt harassing and it felt like what was the point in donating if everything I donated effectively went on marketing to try and get me to donate again. Even at that point in the early 2000s it felt like a self serving organisation.

The lack of interest in the right to a trial show just how far they've strayed. Identitarian policies for the unthinking sheeple. It's depressing. The lack of critical thoughts and just doing something because it's 'trendy' and you think it will appeal to a target market is striking. It's even more depressing when it's written in their annual report they planned to target men as supporters and they then attack a bunch of women's organisations including rape crisis charities. At a time when there so much concern over the Manosphere etc. It's so unbelievably regressive and against everything they should be doing.

The idea they are non-political is absolutely laughable.

I hope someone on the list goes full lawyered up and doesn't back down to show up this absolute shit show for what it is. Empty rhetoric based on zero evidence and a desire to destroy women's rights. I want to see them held to account. It is not ok to repeat flawed mantras which are sexist and homophobic.

The report was written by Chiara Capraro (she/her)

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/media-centre/spokespeople/

Apparently, she is an episode of the Guilty Feminist podcast. Reading Bev Jackson's review of it, I'll probably give it a swerve

https://x.com/i/status/2075633520911745177

Chiara has a wide experience of women’s human rights issues, including working with migrant women in Italy, women living with HIV/AIDS, and sex workers in India. She has previously led women’s rights and gender equality policy at Christian Aid and Womankind Worldwide. She has been part of expert groups lobbying for women’s rights at the United Nations and has been published on women’s rights in various peer-reviewed journals.

My bold.

If this gets taken to court for libel and they can produce fuck all evidence for their claims, this will in turn raise some questions for the unwomen.

Yes I wouldn’t disagree on the potential for exaggeration of internal complaints and could picture amnesty employees to include the kind of people quick to see insults or feel criticisms where none was intended. Sometimes campaigning NGOs attract individuals or volunteers who have those traits.

However, it was the suicide of two employees that was the trigger for the investigation in reference to the BBC article. So I wouldn’t be shocked if Amnesty was being run by men full of their own importance and who enjoyed bullying others.

A slight derail…. Read this comment👇 about the Greens Canada co leader and wondered who it sounded like 🤔

“This was nothing more than an exercise in his own self-promotion. I am surprised more GPC members can’t see right through him.”

From Bev Jackson's post

At the end the presenter mustered the troops (tiny audience) to produce school toolkits to counter those disseminated by Sex Matters and to make posters to fight the terrible “bathroom bill” (the EHRC Code of Practice) that would force trans people to stay at home.

Back in the day, when Amnesty asked people to write letters, did they at least give the impression that they understood legislation and parliamentary process? Apart from anything else this just sounds like a complete waste of time.

I have to say 99% of the comments I've seen on Facebook about this seem to be full on TERF. So proud!

Bev ends by saying

I am well aware that this malevolent misrepresentation of the wonderful, multi-faceted movement in the UK that is not “anti rights” but pro the rights of women and girls, pro LGB rights, and pro the rights of children to go through puberty and mature into adults was presented by three self-satisfied women. Traitors to women and girls everywhere.

That ‘three self-satisfied women’ sums up the position of so many women on the left who promote genderism to the detriment of women’s rights and the safeguarding of children.

Is this on the Amnesty page?

Also worrying that one of the trustees is employed as Director of Policy, Strategy and Communications at NHS Resolution, the legal arm of the health service in England.

Especially if, at the board level, deliberately or not, it looks as though he supports the targeting of gender critical pro women support groups given how this amnesty report portrays them as anti-rights.

Might this be another explanation for why so many NHS trusts fail to understand or uphold the law on single sex spaces?

No. Under all the news outlets reporting the story.

To be fair to Amnesty, they have been very helpful as I now have a lovely collated list of organisations that I can support.

I’ve just listened to it, I don’t recommend it if you value your blood pressure.

about:blank source:%20YouTube

Chiara has only been working for Amnesty since 2018 and is shocked and appalled by how many “anti trans” organisations have emerged in the UK during that time.

I was just trying to explain the Guilty Feminist idiots to DP. The podcast with Mridul Wadhwa being an all time low. Transcript by FWS here:

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf

I've been wondering this too. My memories of Amnesty International were supporting prisoners of conscience abroad (letter writing) and that they didn't get involved in their own country, to remain impartial.

Have they (the UK section) morphed into a human rights organisation that focuses on rights in the UK?

Maybe the world ran out of prisoners of conscience so AI had to diversify.

@EasternStandard Many of the organisations Amnesty has libelled are small - with either limited funding or none at all (grassroots) so don't know if they will be able to take legal action. Maybe some of the larger orgs involved with paid staff or one of the legal based ones will be able to help/ advise so they can do it together?

Interestingly, Amnesty states it campaigns for the protections of children's human rights, but not if they are children of transpeople- they never spoke up for Children of Transitioners here:
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/challenge-to-registration-of-transgender-man-as-mother-declared-inadmissible/

So JK Rowling's right- Amnesty don't support human rights of women or children unless they're trans!

How has it come about that all the leading children's charities and human rights organisations are now peddling this pernicious nonsense? Has it been a systematic process of infiltration?

Has it been a systematic process of infiltration?

I think it has been - Denton's handbook, am I right? And they've been at it for close to 20 years now, so have had plenty of time to infiltrate organizations and indoctrinate an entire generation of children, many of whom are now in the workforce, or moving into the workforce. A sleeper generation.

I believe this is why we must watch organizations such as Stonewall, Compass, Amnesty, etc, and keep our eyes on the various political groups to see where they pivot to next. We cannot alow this kind of subterfuge to claim another generation of children, or we'll never get out of this mess. Thankfully, we seem to be dismantling the system a bit at a time, and we have the law on the side of reality. For now.

Maybe there isn't much money in supporting prisoners of conscience? I can't believe they have run out.

I'm curious as to the shift from anti-trans to anti-rights. As we know, the no debate history created the circumstances where the consideration of the impact of GI on the rights of women, who are an oppressed class because of the material reality of their sex, not their identity as women, was a no-go area.

As voices have risen in defiance of the wholesale adoption of TRA ideology ( which was managed through Stonewall's Champion's Index protection racket before anyone had clocked what they were doing (pay us £2000 per year and we won't call you transphobic. Give us some more money for training and we will place you at the bottom of our champion's index. Be sure to silence women who might disagree and we will move you up the index so you can demonstrate to the world how EDI you are), the misinformation about what those who defy gender ideology has been central to TRAs activism.

Firstly, that to discuss women as an oppressed and vulnerable group because of the material reality of their biology rather than stereotypes historically developed with the framework of patriarchy is claimed to be anti-trans because it denies the existence of trans (their argument, not mine).

This is misinformation, of course. Those operating in defiance of gender ideology disagree with the slogan TWAW. This cannot logically be a statement denying the existence of Trans because if transgender identifying men were actually women and transgender identifying women were actually men there would be no need for the idea of trans to exist. It kinda undermines its own premise.

The problem has been the whole movement has been built on that slogan, and the slogan contradicts their own position which is that trans are an especially vulnerable group that need extra special protections above all other groups.

But it is continues to be useful to adopt anti-trans as a descriptor because is a loaded term which carries a whole lot of 'borrowed' history from elsehwere, even if intentionally misunderstood and misapplied. It has grown in use since the over use of 'transphobic' as a means to shut down debate has lost all purchase.

So why have Amnesty adoped 'anti-rights' instead of anti-trans?

My initial thought was that they have been in receipt of a lot of criticism and, I believe, they are less in favour re funding than previously as their TRA position has de-valued their reputation and standing to a significant degree, and so although the individuals remain captured they thought a shift to anti-rights from anti-trans would represent them as being more broadly engaged and that the contridiction between their TRA focus in recent years doesn't eliminate their 'feminist' credentials (in speechmarks because they have really lost all claims to feminism in their bid to support men in all instances over and above women, note the description of women under the Taliban as being punished merely for 'identifying as female' Ha! If they could identify the fuck out of being women under the Taliban they would have done so.

(As some other clever lags have noted Amnesty have been crucial in enforcing the TRAliban)

The other idea I had was that, in their stupidity, they might have thought anti-rights less defamatory?

Again this relies on the misinformation at the heart of it, that trans-rights are somehow being traduced by the rise of the defiance against the ideology. Trans have the same rights as everyone else but they don't have EXTRA rights of veto when it comes to the rights women have for SSS, for example, in prisons and rape crisis centres or their need for protections against male violence/ sexual abuse. There are support networks for TRAs who suffer from male violence/ sexual abuse in equal measure. The claim that they can only be served properly if able to access SSS for women (otherwise transphobic) is about control, not rights. Preferred pronouns is also about control, not rights.

What do others think? Is this a new lexicon for the TRA activists, and what do they gain from it? Or is it just a lack of critical engagement with language and meaning?

@ProfLargofesse

Good observation!

Or is it just a lack of critical engagement with language and meaning?

I think it is this first. Whoever in Amnesty thought up, orchestrated, approved, then published this list seems not to have thought this through to its logical conclusion, to put it mildly. This suggests a serious lack of critical thinking, both about the language used or the meaning behind the words. So, a catchy catch-all catchphrase, if you like. They probably read it somewhere and thought it made them sound clever.

However...

Is this a new lexicon for the TRA activists, and what do they gain from it?

I could see activists running with this. It's a catchy catch-all catchphrase, after all, and neatly distances themselves from having to try to define their terms, as we have been asking for years. But, just as they failed to define "trans" and "gender" without using circular reasoning and stereotypes, they will now have to define "rights" and explain what they are, and why some are "anti-rights."

They're digging themselves another hole, but it may be a useful diversion for a while. Keeps the foot soldiers from becoming restless and rebelling against the Overlords.

I read on X that they dropped this in 2002 and that everything has to be risk assessed (would love to see the risk assessment on this one!!)