In which Amnesty jumps the shark

[WrongKindOfFeminist]

A report on 'anti gender actors' from Amnesty appears to be a puzzling work of jumbled nonsense and overwrought fiction.

Either they completely fail to grasp what 'gender critical' means, or they are deliberately trying desperately to bundle it in with Xtian rightwing US organisations. Maybe both.

Trans activists have been accusing UK feminists of being rightwing Xtian US fundamentalist funded for years. Sometimes it's funny, more often it's just fucking tedious.

Anyway.

'An organised anti-rights movement targeting the rights of women and LGBT+ people is growing in the UK. Over 60% of the organisations mapped have emerged since 2017, the vast majority gender critical organisations'

What the everloving fuck do they think they mean, here?

Feminists 'target' the rights of women? In terms of - feminists have fought long and hard for the rights of women? Yes, well done, Amnesty.

Then they whang on a lot about abortion and well funded US rightwing organisations, including religious groups, etc.

And then ...

'In fact, gender critical organisations only account for 2.5% of total expenditure but have been remarkably successful in realising their agenda through strategic litigation and campaigning.'

Will you ever actually use your brains, Amnesty?

The list at the end should give them a wee clue. Dozens of feminist organisations, almost all listed as 'informal', yet lumped in bizarrely with massive US anti abortion groups.

Idiots.

www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/report-a-growing-threat-the-anti-rights-movement-in-the-uk-july-2026/

Non-ambulant woman and other women needing the facilities in accessible toilets rarely have access to single sex toilets.

Do they have access to a single cubicle space therefore making it single sex?

The issue is that the TWAW crowd say that they are the same level of threat to
women as other women- so the door gaps can in theory remain.

The reason we have single sex toilets is because men commit nearly 100% of assaults on women, mostly in private spaces and women cannot defend themselves because of the strength advantage. The strength advantage and propensity for violence does not disappear at any level of transition.

Therefore transwomen pose the same level of risk to women in public toilets as any other man.

No the accessible design is usually for mixed sex use. It is larger to accommodate a wheelchair and a carer - perhaps one of the opposite sex. It is not a cubicle, it is a room. There’s a technical difference. There are disadvantages with any mixed sex, private space in a public area. The way to mitigate for problems in the accessible toilet is to have it in an area that is as public as possible and to have a pull alarm that someone will respond to. Unfortunately the alarms are often tied up and these rooms misused (sex, drugs, shelter) the latter being why radar keys were introduced.

But the user doesn’t have to share it with anyone when they are in there?

Only the puddle of wee, the used needles and condoms, the planted cameras, and the rapist who has just followed her in there and slammed shut the solid soundproofed door.

Is the risk to female users of accessible toilet users increased by transwomen having access to female only spaces in a way that doesn’t effect male users?

If so-how?

That is not true that door gaps remain. When you look at toilets that have been designed as ‘gender neutral’ or ‘inclusive’, they go down to the ground.
This is different to when someone has just altered the pictogram on the front of a single sex toilet washroom and kept the single sex cubicle designs. It appears one thing that almost no one tolerates is a door gap in a mixed sex space. Up to May 2025 figures, all voyeurs in prison were men so women benefit more when toilets are single sex.

In Approved Document T for England, all toilet cubicles (gaps or not) should lead out into single sex accomodation.

What are the chances of fixing it so all multi-user single-sex toilets include a larger level-access cubicle with grab bars, sink, and alarm, so the enclosed single-user ones are needed only for those needing opposite-sex help, and those psychologically unable to use single-sex facilities (plus tiny venues)?

I agree with you- but we have to think about the arguments coming from men who feel entitled to be in a female space. They managed to persuade the government to bring in Self ID.

We have to keep the messaging simple- Transwomen pose the same level of risk in society to women as any other man. Therefore women feel threaten by transwomen coming into their spaces as they would with any other man. The only solution to remove this level of fear is to keep private spaces that women use single sex only.

Enclosed single-user facilities are dangerous for everyone and the only mitigation is rigorous monitoring and hygiene.

Women with disabilities would be safer in the women-only facilities.

Women-only facilities are safer if men are not allowed in.

You answered your own question about men and women having shared spaces at 9.24.

Most men are good men. Some men aren’t. It would be nice if we could keep the accessible for the people that need it and put more accessible toilets (with door gaps) in both single sex toilet accommodation. Therefore parents with pushchairs or young children and independent non ambulant people can benefit too. Particularly non-ambulant women as they have biological needs that are different to men.

However businesses have to deal with the expense and practicalities of this. Some in buildings that weren’t even built for men’s toilets let alone women’s toilets (which came later in a lot of cases).

Is this related to transwomen coming into female toilets or just in general?

When I said "Women-only facilities are safer if men are not allowed in.", I was including transwomen in 'men'.

I thought that was obvious, but possibly not to everyone...

I am confused.

I am talking about the risks transwomen pose to women accessing female only toilets.

Accessible toilets have always been single cubicle if outside the toilet. I assume they are outside the other toilets when there is not enough space to include them in the sex separated facilities.

The risks of males being stronger and more violent doesn’t seem to apply when the toilet is single cubicle because you are less likely to be at risk from a male dressed as a woman attacking you/filming you/intimidating you.

I am sure like most mixed sex facilities they are disgusting but is there a reason that a safety/privacy of a female user would be affected in the same way a woman in a public toilet would be if a transwoman walked in?

Safety is reduced in a facility with no door gaps because nobody can see if the user is in distress. (This can be mitigated to an extent with an alarm sytem).

Privacy is affected in a facility with door gaps.

The problem of privacy can be mitigated if the facility is single sex.

I don't understand the relevance of the transwoman walking in.

Here’s a thread I found in Reddit LabourUK subreddit which links to an Amnesty briefing on “anti rights” from June last year. With some fuckwitted Guilty Feminist video attached.

So it’s been built up for over a year and I can’t believe that Capraro was the only one who approved the work.

At this point they say they are looking at 65 organisations. Two categories among about 6 of “conversion therapy” and “other” which I imagine some GC orgs fall into. I wonder at what point they decided to go full throttle on GC.

Our groundbreaking analysis has uncovered a rapidly expanding network of organisations working to undermine human rights protections, targeting reproductive freedoms, LGBTI rights and promoting dangerous practices such as so-called "conversion therapy".
This threat is real, organised and growing. But we see their game, and we won’t stand for it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/s/sesMs5v7jX

I am not quite sure what you are suggesting but any plans to change all provision is non existent! It is estimated each council-run public toilet cost £15,000 to run and maintain each year. Accessible toilets will be more. Building or refurbishing them would cost millions.

I would like to see single sex accessible toilets within single sex accommodation being possible for new larger venues that are being build from scratch though or very large refurbishments. I have helped a female wheelchair user who would have very much appreciated this set up as she could have coped independently and would have given her more dignity. I saw a figure that said over 50% of users of accessible toilets are independent.

However there are ambulant cubicles that are a half way measure in single sex accommodation. If you look carefully at more modern blocks, you’ll see (usually the end cubicle) will have a door that opens outwards and have grab handles inside. It will have a shelf. These are useful for frailer people and people that may need a shelf for medical purposes.

Most venues, if they followed Building Control, health and safety legislation and British Standards won’t have to do anything as their toilets are compliant. In larger venues with multiple toilets: Most single sex are cubicles within a single sex washroom and mixed sex (unisex, universal, most accessible) are individual rooms with the toilet, sink and dryer within. It has been this way for decades.

Re: alarms. The girl who I saw had stopped breathing in her cubicle wasn’t in any state to pull an alarm. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet - how many would pull an alarm? Alarms have to work, be maintained and responded to. In schools they are misused and turned off after going off too many times. A lot of my research has been with ‘inclusive’ design in schools. Schools are exempt from certain legislation so their designs have ‘evolved’ to all sorts. There are American companies that have tailored smart alarms specifically for private ‘gender neutral’ cubicle toilets in schools, including British schools, that listen out for pre-loaded prompts such as ‘help me’ or ‘stop it’. Alarms are expensive, cause problems and many in the single cubicles are switched off especially at exam times.

I don't understand your confusion. No-one is arguing for transwomen to be excluded from enclosed single-user facilities. But they are subject to different regulations from multi-user single-sex facilities in that they must have a sink, and no door gap, and additional features if designated as accessible.

It would be very bad (and not per regulation) to have a row of single-user toilets with no door gap, opening onto a mixed-sex sink area. It would have all the safety and hygiene problems of enclosed single-user facilities, and none of the features that would make it useable by disabled people or parents with small children.

It would be the worst of all worlds, created just so a transwoman can stand with the women by the sinks. Colossal indulgence!

The 2025 'report' just has a web page that doesn't list the organisations studied, but according to the 2026 report the 51 gender critical organisations are in addition to the 65 original organisations.

I think trying to understand the report is a dead end. It's so badly researched and the premise is so wrong - 'people who disagree with me are anti-rights' - that the more important questions are how was it ever published, and what has gone wrong at Amnesty?

I am a bit confused as to what you are wanting to know.

Maybe this picture will help. This is relevant for England btw I don’t know the design requirements of all countries around the world where you may be.

If the toilet cubicles are in a single sex environment, the design on the left is allowed. This is a typically the standard design for single sex toilets due to health and safety advantages. The toilet cubicles are semi private and lead out onto a washroom (the sinks) that is private from the opposite sex. It also costs less and is practical. For example you can soak and drain surfaces in bleach without moisture damage to the door and partitions. It is naturally ventilated. It is scientifically proven this design contains fewer pathogens than unisex toilets. The flush flume won’t be landing on the immediate area with the sink in. You can see how many people are in the cubicle and who else is in the vicinity. For added security it’s even better if the doors rest in the open position. If you are trapped you can call for help and be rescued easily.

If it is ambiguous if the environment outside the toilet cubicle is single sex, even the ‘single sex’ cubicles have gone private, like the design on the right. This is to prevent voyeurism and discomfort. Privacy overrides health and safety. If a door is left closed, no one will know if a person has collapsed.

If the environment the toilet is situated in is for both sexes, the toilet sink and dryer must be in the same room and, from the outside, it is private, similar to the design on the right.

Real life examples from the U.K. show it can take hours or days to find people who have collapsed, even in busy places, within enclosed toilets.

Does that help? The reason it says ‘child’ in my picture, is because my campaign stated by looking at what’s been going on in British schools. This is a typical example showing the problems in design:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

Thanks to FWS that has to change. The Supreme Court verdict has so many benefits for everyone. The new 2026 Department for Education guidelines for secondary school toilets say they have to be in single sex suites. Door gaps are still optional but I am hoping to raise awareness of the advantages now barriers are removed. Any toilet that can be used by both sexes must be in its own room with a handbasin and hand dryer within it.

Bringing it back to aid agencies, this is Plan in the U.K. in 2021, looking at girls missing school due to menstruation. It would be useful to know what designs these girls had to put up with, as up to 25% of secondary schools had mixed sex toilets last year.
https://plan-uk.org/press/two-million-girls-in-the-uk-miss-school-because-of-their-period

Here's my card for Amnesty. Made with basic Word on a 6x4 layout because my handwriting is rubbish.

Perfect!

How convenient! I was just sorting out a box of things I received from jessdewahls.com.

Eresh, that may be worth sending to Sex Matters or Beira's place.