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/

@Ereshkigalangcleg
The mental gymnastics in that reddit thread you linked are insane.
e.g. the accusations of links with Christian extremists. Some rapture thing. Its all one giant conspiracy of everyone who won't bend the knee over there. What worries me the most is I think they truly believe what they are saying.

They do. It’s an immersive fantasy world and a genuine “echo chamber”.

Based on our ploppers’ posting style over the years, I don’t think that they actually do believe any of it.

I think they enjoy creating drama, attacking people they disagree with, and they love making false accusations/casting aspersions on other people’s good name.

In the book Galileo’s Middle Finger, it describes a group of TIMs trying to bring down researcher Michael Bailey because he wrote about/investigated autogynephilia. They reported him to authorities for molesting his kids, they went after his wife and her work, they complained of research misconduct to Bailey’s Uni, they posted disgusting lies about Bailey and his family online, they accused him of rape.

None of what they reported or posted about him was true, they just wanted to destroy him because he told the world the truth about them and other men like them.

I agree the ones who come here to goad and stir don’t, but there are unstable and vulnerable people who “feel unsafe” who do.

One of those same TIMs you mention is making a database of all the Amnesty report orgs btw.

I like the idea of “qualified immunity”.

The problem is indeed the gaps in the law/ policy. In the puberty blockers legal action, the moment you heard that the policy only requires that a medical study ‘might benefit somebody’ - apologies for the paraphrase - you knew that challenge on legal grounds was toast.

That is as loose as an elephant’s pyjama string, that could be used to justify - well anything, afaics. IANAL and I could have the wrong end of the stick because it seems unbelievable.

Anybody who can correct, please do.

Wouldn’t legal advice being privileged mean that this could never be proven?

editted: sorry - should have quoted @lechiffre55

Legal advice to organisations isn’t privileged, or shouldn’t be. Surely it advantages an organisation - take Amnesty, or NHS Fife, for example - to be able to evidence that it took legal advice before it did something that - er - fell short.

I have some vague recollection of the phrase “ignorance of the law is not an excuse”.

It certainly isn't in the case of ordinary citizens breaking a law through ignorance of its existence. It's a legal principle; it's even in Latin!

Everyone is assumed to know all laws relevant to them, and not having known you are not actually allowed to run in the street won't get you off if you ran and knocked someone over, as it were. I don't suppose you'd still be transported for "riotously demolishing a hovel", but if you got done for it, saying "Lord, lord, I didnae ken!" might get the answer "aye weel, ye ken noo" from the judge before he passed sentence.

I once went into the local cop shop (they were friends of mine in there, so they didn't mind) and asked them what the law was on some point or other I now forget. There were four officers on duty, and they gave four different replies.