Gender Justice, Human Rights and Propaganda

What happens when a pre-eminent human rights organisation becomes captured by a quasi religious ideology? I took the course to find out.

On April 2nd I was alerted to the existence of a course offered by Amnesty International UK called Gender Justice and Human Rights: Tackling the rise of the anti-gender movement. As of the time of writing 2, 240 had enrolled on the course and it had an impressive 4.7 star rating from its 17 reviews. One read ‘the content was okay and the details are very accurate’.

I thought it my duty to test that assertion. The course offers 3 learning objectives spread over three hours

• delve into the fundamental concepts of gender justice

• examine the motivations and impacts of anti gender movements

• discover strategies to support and advance gender justice

The tone is set very early on with a thoughtful trigger warning that tells me exactly what the authors want me to feel about these brutes who challenge gender

Learning about gender injustice can be emotionally challenging, especially if you experience marginalisation and oppression. You may find some of the material upsetting. Please consider your wellbeing and take time out of the course if necessary.

Week 1

Suitably warned I continued to the first week which promised to impart understanding of the key concepts and explore gender as a social construct. I was pleasantly surprised. The definitions of ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ are pretty much the ones I would give - for e.g.

Gender is a social construct, an idea created to categorise people and order society. It varies across cultures and changes over time.

But by the time we get to ‘social construct’ the alarm bells are clanging. The course correctly recognises that stereotypes inform assumptions we make about ‘gender roles’ - boys should never cry, girls are innately nurturing and gentle. But it goes on to assert that the differences between men and women are therefore solely created by society i.e. there is nothing about the male or female sex that might contribute to female oppression

It means men and women should act differently based on the roles society has created for them.

These beliefs and expectations lead to an unequal power dynamics where men hold more power than women, have more access to economic and political resources, and are valued more in positions of authority.

And of course, reliance is then placed on Simone de Beauvoir who apparently illustrated the ‘fact’ that the idea of womanhood is a social construction. The sleight of hand is complete. Sex has been subsumed completely by gender. And it is gender not sex that determines a woman’s place in the world, gender is sex and sex is gender, its all just a ‘construct’ and can be challenged and changed.

The definition of ‘anti gender movements’ illustrates this idiocy, bundling up sex, sexuality and gender all in one amorphous and hence entirely useless definition

An umbrella term that refers to groups of individuals and organisations who oppose gender justice, and actively seek to limit the human rights and freedoms of women, LGBTI+ and gender diverse people, including access to healthcare, education and employment.

I commented as follows - it will be interesting to see if my comment survives.

You appear to be muddling up sex and gender in a way that is both confusing and dangerously misleading. Women are not oppressed because of their 'gender' but because of their sex - an immutable reality, not a stereotype they can shake off

The befuddlement is complete at the conclusion of the week’s learning as the course abandons all pretence that it considers sex and gender to be different, presents them as a single ‘social construct’ and asserts

When the gender binary is questioned, the oppression of women, and erasure and violence towards gender diverse people is no longer justifiable on the basis that it is ‘natural’.

I commented

I would be very interested to know how you think 'questioning the gender binary' would work for women in Afghanistan, who are oppressed because of their sex, which they cannot change. You appear to have abandoned previous claims that sex and gender are different, which is a great shame as I thought your initial definitions were actually quite sensible.

This muddle is now infecting all that follows. Trans and intersex people are recognised to ‘disrupt the norm of the sex and gender binary’ and are therefore ‘marginalised’ in the feminist movement fighting for bodily autonomy such as the right to abortion. Sex at least has to be recognised here. But the battle cry is simply that everyone has to ‘come together’ to ‘strengthen the movement for gender justice’. In the fight for women’s reproductive rights it is hard to see what skin a trans identifying man has in this game, but to assert this is unacceptable ‘marginalisation’. Any man can claim the female ‘gender’ and thus should be afforded full rights to talk about the experience of the female sex.

I commented

Why are trans identifying men 'marginalised' if they are not centred in the fight for women's reproductive rights? This appears to be another casualty of your conflation of sex and gender - a man claiming a female gender identity will never need an abortion, his experience cannot be anything like that of a woman's. Recognising this is not 'marginalising' a man; it is a recognition of what is real.

The course then touches on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, adopted in 1979 and clearly referring to women as a sex. But we are told that it is a ‘living instrument’ and has become more ‘intersectional’ over the years and now reflects the ‘different experiences of gender oppression women and gender minorities face’.

I have no idea what a ‘gender minority’ is as so far no definition has been given to that term.

Week 2 - the anti gender movement

This part of the course will enable me to define the origins of the anti-gender movement and how it manifests, and what has been its impact.

The introduction is breathtaking, but not in a good way.

Anti-gender movements, men’s rights activists and a spectrum of people across the conservative and religious right, are countering the gender justice vision with their own: a return to a fantasy of the past.

Their broad aim is to restore a patriarchal social order where men have control over women’s bodies and their freedom, and LGBTI+ people and those who don’t fit into the idealised ‘traditional’ family simply don’t exist.

I commented

This is really astonishing and disturbing. I believe that sex is real and it matters. I have absolutely no desire to return to the past where in living memory my sex was denied equal personhood with men. But I do believe that sex and gender are different things and women have rights based on their sex which cannot be claimed by men, regardless of their identity, such as access to single sex female spaces for their safety and dignity. I hope that you are going to explain exactly how this means I have a 'fantasy' of the 'past'.

We being by looking at how the Catholic Church doesn’t like gender, blah blah in fact none of those horrid religious countries like Italy and Poland do. But Amnesty has to take a different tack when looking at the UK as we are a predominantly secular society. But don’t worry! Amnesty simply swivel to what must be the obvious cause of the UK gender scepticism - ‘ideologically conservative politicians, press and individuals’. Religion and the Right Wing meet to forge ‘unlikely alliances’ in their desire to hunt down and destroy ‘gender’.

The term ‘gender ideology’ is dismissed as follows

Gender ideology has become a catch-all label used by anti-gender actors to refer to all the issues they oppose, including reproductive rights, trans rights, women’s bodily autonomy and LGBTI+ rights.

This term purposefully lacks a clear definition and creates a sensationalised narrative that order is under threat from those advocating for women’s bodily autonomy and LGBTI+ rights. ‘Gender ideology’ becomes the vehicle for the phantasm of gender; an undefinable spectre that threatens everything.

This is arrant and infuriating nonsense. I commented as follows

I find it very curious that you purport to educate people about this and yet you claim that 'gender ideology' has no definition? It is defined as that quasi religious belief that a self identified 'gender identity' is more important than or even subsumes entirely, the organising category of sex. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with that position, but to pretend it is undefined and to use pejorative language such as 'spectre' is unbecoming both to your general position as a pre eminent human rights organisation and to your particular pedagogic goals

The course goes on to give cursory examples of global ‘anti gender’ actions and then describes what ‘anti-gender actors’ ‘broadly’ seek to do

• demonise and discredit feminist and LGBTI+ groups

• stir up moral panic by reviving old tropes of feminists posing a threat to family and masculinity

• argue that LGBTI+ people pose a danger to the innocence of children.

• Present themselves as the solution to these attacks against ‘tradition’ and ‘common sense’

I commented as follows

So there is no possibility in your world view, that feminists might object to 'gender' on the basis that it is encouraging children into poorly evidenced and irreversible medical and surgical interventions? You think the Cass Review and the High Court warning against the irresponsible prescribing of outfits such as Gender GP is a product of 'moral panic'? I find your approach astonishing and quite dishonest.

Interestingly some of the other comments are now expressing similar scepticism to the Amnesty approach - thanks to to Stephen Flaherty who references the two separate groups of nurses taking the NHS to court over its denial of their right to single sex changing facilities.

I moved swiftly to part 2.9 which poses the question - what impact is the anti-gender movement having on human rights in the UK? It begins spectacularly poorly with an examination of Andrew Tate. What relevance he has to the grass roots movements of women seeking to preserve their sex based rights, I have absolutely no idea.

I commented as follows

I am now completely lost. As a woman who wishes to defend my sex based rights and to protect children against unnecessary and unevidenced medication, it is surely a ridiculously broad tent to include me and Andrew Tate!

The course then discusses the successful action against proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act in 2018. Fair Play for Women is the only group name checked for paying £40K to take out a full page ad in the Metro. Amnesty doesn’t think any other group deserves a mention. Also Amnesty UK forgets that Wales and NI exist.

These groups, who describe themselves as ‘gender critical’ are a specific feature of England and Scotland. They have used legal action, lobbying, fundraising and media successfully: any reform of gender recognition has been abandoned and rallying against ‘trans ideology’ has become expedient for many others, including political representatives and sections of the media.

I commented

This is a curiously cursory examination of the 'gender critical' groups in the UK. Worth mentioning perhaps that Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance both succeeded in being awarded charitable status? That For Women Scotland have brought these issues to the Supreme Court? That Maya Forstater in 2021 secured legal recognition of belief that sex is real and it matters as a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society? There is a thin line between passive silence and active dishonesty and I am afraid I think you have crossed it here.

Conclusions

There is a week 3 but frankly I think I have suffered enough. I was asked to rate my experience of weeks 1 and 2. I chose the ‘sad face’ emoji and commented thus

This is appalling. You have conflated sex and gender, you have conflated women's rights groups with religious bigots or the Far Right. This is not 'education'. It is indoctrination and propaganda. From an organisation I once respected as a pre-eminent in protecting human rights, this is a bitter pill indeed. I am asking that you either amend or withdraw this course. In the event that you refuse, I will be making representations to the Charity Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I consider that you are encouraging hate and discrimination against a protected belief - that sex is real and it matters.

I will now contact the email address offered for comments and give them 28 days to respond. I am sick and tired of this shit. I hope you are too. If you share my rage, let Amnesty know.

is anything you need help with you can contact us at sct@amnesty.org.uk.

EDIT WEEK 3

I knew that I would need to complete week 3 for completeness. This final module will teach me about a ‘gender justice approach to campaigns and action’ and ways I can apply gender justice principles to my own day to day life. I was interested to know what is recommended by way of campaigning, as my attendance at a seminar regarding trans rights advocacy in February 2025, revealed very little by way of actual strategy.

I am told there is no ‘rulebook’ for achieving ‘gender justice’ but there are three guiding principles

1. Use an intersectional lens

2. Frame all issues of gender injustice as systemic problems that are underpinned by patriarchy

3. Centre the voices and leadership of those with lived experience.

So big focus on intersectionality and go straight to the root causes, i.e. patriarchy. Ironic statement in light of their complete refusal to consider women’s rights - We cannot achieve justice for one oppressed group while others are still oppressed.

Examples of activism to smash the partriarchy are given as the campaign of Gina Martin to ban ‘upskirting’, which became a criminal offence in 2019. But she has since learned the error of her ways in seeking ‘carceral’ solutions that over looks the harm caused by the prison system against marginalised identities, and she is now committed to ‘working with people to prevent this harm outside of existing and harmful racist structures, not with the system to criminalise it’. So we learn that campaigning to make things a criminal offence is not an approved strategy.

The second example is ‘lesbians and gays’ supporting migrants, bringing to light how the struggles of queer people and migrants intersect. What this has to do with smashing the gender binary, is not explained.

The third example however and interestingly, is abortion reform in Ireland which surely even Amnesty have to recognise is a sex based issue. It is however presented entierly as a ‘gender identity’ issue, despite relying on the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar who was denied abortion care.

The fourth example is ‘imagining a feminist future’ and to call for the abolition of structures that cannot be separated from patriarchy and racism. That’s pretty much it. Nothing by way of any practical suggestions. I am then urged to do a short ‘visioning exercise’ to ‘push against the limits’ of what I know. I declined.

Campaigns that are working to create a gender just world are then mentioned. Curiously, Amnesty proudly declare their third party intervention in the Supreme Court appeal of the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, on the 26/27 November 2024 (judgement awaited). It is clear that Amnesty see this issue exclusively through a ‘trans rights’ lens, with no discussion and consideration of what it might mean for women if ‘sex’ is defined in the Equality Act as including ‘legal sex’ by virtue of a GRC. I am very uneasy by this as it underscores that Amnesty have made a conscious decision not to refer to any ‘gender critical’ legal victories or Article 10 concerns in the week 2 demonisation of those groups.

So what can we do about gender injustice? The practical advice is to join the Amnesty Rainbow network, do work of self reflection, start conversations, join a ‘gender justice reading group’ (yes, really) and using ‘campaign planning resources’. Oddly, the link for such resources is to a booklet talking about working with children aged 5-11 and suggests organising a non uniform day to raise money for charity.

So, not much guidance for the grown adult gender warrior, which possibly should not be a surprise.

I commented as follows

You proclaim your status as third party intervener in the Supreme Court case so you are presumably well aware of how the tension between sex and gender has been dealt with in the courts, and how gender critical women have won case after case, to show that they were unlawfully discriminated against and their article 10 ECHR rights breached. Do you think there is any danger that your partisan and shockingly incomplete approach might be leading those who undertake this 'training' into very dubious legal waters? Do you think any blame might fairly attach to your organisation for this approach? Is this really compatible with your charitable objectives and obligations that attach to such an important status?

EDIT - email to the trustees of Amnesty International

I am writing to make a formal complaint about your training course Gender Justice: Addressing Challenges - Online Course - FutureLearn

What am I concerned about?

I have set out a detailed set of concerns in this Substack post (1) Gender Justice, Human Rights and Propaganda

In summary this purported training

• Offers a false, incomplete and/or seriously misleading description of the legal framework protecting 'gender critical' views in the UK

• Conflates gender critical views, deemed 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' with unlawful bigotry

• Uses pejorative language which risks encouraging discrimination and hate against a protected characteristic - 'fantasy' 'spectre' etc

• Makes those who rely on the training and who are subject to the obligations imposed by the Equality Act 2010/ECHR article 10, vulnerable to legal challenge

I am concerned that this training is contrary to your charitable obligations.

What am I asking you to do?

To remove or substantially amend this training, to avoid the problems I have listed above. I would be grateful for a response by 5th May 2025.

What will I do if you do not respond, or do not agree to remove/amend this training?

I will make referral to the Charity Commission and Equality and Human Rights Commission, without further reference to you.