Does this now make Amnesty International, Nazi, gay-bashing, anti-trans racist bastards?
Amnesty International has apologised for blacklisting JK Rowling’s charity for women.
Beira’s Place was mentioned in a “blacklist” of 117 organisations that Amnesty accused of setting back human rights for women and gay people in the UK…..
…..The Harry Potter author founded Beira’s Place in 2022 to support victims of sexual violence.
Amnesty’s 22-page briefing has since been withdrawn and an internal review launched. The charity has said it was published without the usual checks.
Amnesty International UK said: “We regret that this briefing was uploaded to our website without going through the established internal review processes that are in place to ensure consistency, accuracy and alignment with Amnesty International UK’s positions.
“Its use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK, which is why it was promptly removed. We remain committed to defending human rights, including both the rights of women and the rights of trans people.”
Telegraph 1
*********************************************** "the document should never have been published"
Following a public outcry and threat of legal action from lawyers acting for Beira’s Place,Amnesty has since retracted its anti-rights report, and claimed in an apology that “the document should never have been published”. Beira’s Place welcomed the apology, but said that Amnesty’s statement “fails to recognise that those most severely impacted are the staff who work day in day out to support survivors of sexual violence, and the many women who need and use the service”.
Hmm. Both Amnesty and Oxfam in recent years seem to become politicised. I’ve stopped supporting them. Amnesty is supposed to campaign to help victims of serious political repression - people like Navalny - not futz around strikes poses against people expressing unfashionable views in a supposedly tolerant liberal democracy.
From Rowling's perspective... Initially, errantly supporting the trans-patriarchy and accompanying mainstream feminist crypto-elevation of other oppressed population groups over [diminished focus] on biological women, I guess.
- - - footnote - - -
BW (biological women) deemed to have been demoted to a sort of deprecated legacy status.
_
From Rowling's perspective... Initially, errantly supporting the trans-patriarchy and accompanying mainstream feminist crypto-elevation of other oppressed population groups over [diminished focus] on biological women, I guess.
- - - footnote - - -
BW (biological women) deemed to have been demoted to a sort of deprecated legacy status.
_
I was sort of saying tongue-in-cheek, if Amnesty International (AI) are letting JKR off the hook, then to some that would seem like AI siding with JKR.
Hence to those some, AI has become a bunch of Nazi, gay-bashing, anti-trans racist. So to speak.
I was sort of saying tongue-in-cheek, if Amnesty International (AI) are letting JKR off the hook, then to some that would seem like AI siding with JKR.
Hence to those some, AI has become a bunch of Nazi, gay-bashing, anti-trans racist. So to speak.
Yah, there probably is great ire directed at the organization by some leftangelicals, in that context. I was just clarifying Rowling's own interpretative bias or motivated reasoning in this sprawling and exciting game of rhetoric versus rhetoric.
_
From Rowling's perspective... Initially, errantly supporting the trans-patriarchy and accompanying mainstream feminist crypto-elevation of other oppressed population groups over [diminished focus] on biological women
I was sort of saying tongue-in-cheek, if Amnesty International (AI) are letting JKR off the hook, then to some that would seem like AI siding with JKR.
Hence to those some, AI has become a bunch of Nazi, gay-bashing, anti-trans racist. So to speak.
But actually the corrective action shows Amnesty has not in fact been captured by such extreme people. What is a bit depressing is to see that some of its members considered any initiative associated with Rowling must, ipsofacto, be oppressing trans rights. That is lazy - and, ironically, intolerant and oppressive.
Those are stripes and shades of radical feminism, which historically had a large lesbian membership and apparently still does. Unlike mainstream feminism, it's dedicated principally to mitigating the oppression of biological women, and not watering that mission down by jumping on the bandwagon of every other activist movement that comes along and making sacrifices for them -- or vice versa, allowing those movements to jump on and compromise its tuba wagon. They putatively still count trans men as "women", which half undermines "trans exclusionary" in the pejorative label.
LGB Alliance seems to a "special oddball", though, that dabbles in Lesbian Replacment Theory and the wrong side of the political fence.
LGB (excerpt): Co-founder Bev Jackson said that lesbians are in danger of extinction due to disproportionate focus on transgender issues in schools: "At school, in university, it is so uncommon, it is the bottom of the heap. Becoming trans is now considered the brave option."
She also voiced concern that "If you do not accept that everyone has a gender identity then you are automatically labelled transphobic which means you can no longer discuss women's lives and what's happening to lesbians. We are increasingly discovering that lesbians are no longer welcome in the LGBTQ+ world, which is astonishing."
Jackson has said, "Lesbians don't have penises. A lesbian is a biological woman who is attracted to another biological woman. That's obvious. Or at least it was obvious until a few years ago."
EXCERPTS: I said that gender critical feminism is continuous with radical feminism because I think gender critical feminism is the revival of radical feminism. I think it didn’t start out intending to be that; women were just reacting against what they saw as unsatisfactory mainstream feminist takes on issues like prostitution, pornography, surrogacy, sexual and beauty objectification, gender identity ideology, and more - but as more women gathered together under the label ‘gender critical’ they discovered (or were pointed toward) continuities with the earlier radical feminist theory, and this in turn made the connection stronger as people began revisiting that work.
Gender critical feminists and radical feminists have the same project, in the sense of being committed to the idea of women as a sex caste, and sex oppression as a distinct and important axis of oppression. Unlike at least some of the radical feminists, gender critical feminists don’t make claim to sex oppression being the fundamental axis of oppression, they tend to be more pluralistic about there being multiple independent and sometimes interacting axes of oppression. They do both reject the idea that some other axis, like class or race, fundamentally explains sex oppression though.
[...] This helps to make clear that gender-critical feminism is not a single-issue movement. It is not ‘about’ trans, it is about sex, specifically about being female, and what that means socially, politically, legally, and economically, in societies emerging from histories of male dominance.
Having sex as the caste criterion makes membership and constituency straightforward: the members of the caste are all the female people; the theory has these people as its subject, and the liberation movement has these people as its constituency. We think it makes sense to reclaim the so-called ‘gender terms’, giving ‘woman’ back to the female people who are actually subject to this caste hierarchy, giving ‘feminism’ back to their theory, and giving ‘the women’s movement’ back to their politics.
Given everything I have said so far, hopefully the need and justification for theory and movement that names the female sex caste and the oppression of its members is clear. That theory is radical feminism, and its latest incarnation, gender-critical feminism.
[...] People can testify to their experience, but the experience of ‘identifying as a woman’ doesn’t change your sex, and the experience of working in prostitution doesn’t change the prevalence of violence in the industry or harm to women done by the industry’s existence.
Furthermore, women themselves are a marginalised group making some specific claims about their experience, so this can result in a kind of deference standoff: even if transwomen say they experience being women and that in virtue of being so-called ‘cis’, women should defer on this point; women can say they experience being female, and in virtue of being male, transwomen should defer on this point. This is generally overlooked, because the fact that sex is an independent axis of oppression is often overlooked, in favour of new and overly-complicated understandings of what oppression there actually is in the vicinity of sex/gender.
_
But actually the corrective action shows Amnesty has not in fact been captured by such extreme people. What is a bit depressing is to see that some of its members considered any initiative associated with Rowling must, ipsofacto, be oppressing trans rights. That is lazy - and, ironically, intolerant and oppressive.
Yes, I did wonder what made it come up on Amnesty's radar, but if you look at CC’s post #9, you can see it's a mire of word salad labels.
I can sort of see why Amnesty could have a 'blip' now and again in that direction.
Yes, I did wonder what made it come up on Amnesty's radar, but if you look at CC’s post #9, you can see it's a mire of word salad labels.
I can sort of see why Amnesty could have a 'blip' now and again in that direction.
Indeed. By the way I’m surprised this thread has escaped the attention of our in-house Savonarola of all things right-on. I expect he will turn up in due course.
This is generally overlooked, because the fact that sex is an independent axis of oppression is often overlooked, in favour of new and overly-complicated understandings of what oppression there actually is in the vicinity of sex/gender.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of "overly-complicated understandings." These rhetorical battles playing out as skirmishes in a culture war can often seem impenetrable thickets of jargon especially for people who have gone through life not giving much thought to sex and gender and all the variety of hybrid states.
Amnesty Intl seems to have generally been a positive force for helping the oppressed, and I would hope their actions remain louder than all the words being parsed.
Indeed. By the way I’m surprised this thread has escaped the attention of our in-house Savonarola of all things right-on. I expect he will turn up in due course.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of "overly-complicated understandings." These rhetorical battles playing out as skirmishes in a culture war can often seem impenetrable thickets of jargon especially for people who have gone through life not giving much thought to sex and gender and all the variety of hybrid states.
Amnesty Intl seems to have generally been a positive force for helping the oppressed, and I would hope their actions remain louder than all the words being parsed.
I know that terms like "narcissist" and "egomaniac" get thrown around a lot on social media, but really, what do you call a straight homophobe who has earnestly convinced herself that she knows better than the entire gay rights movement what is best for gay people?
And I don't know, maybe she's just a closet case. But it's true, J.K. Rowling↱ is on her bigoted bender again, insisting that transgender women are men.
The gay rights movement is currently host to a cannibalising ideology that blames and shames homosexuals for not sleeping with members of the opposite sex. Amnesty International is on the side of the persecutors.
What a hatemonger. Once again, McCall↑: "Someone who has a penis, or once had a penis, will rape, because either the penis, or the socialization of people with penises, is the cause of rape … A dick will inevitably rape. Or a man's dick could drive him to become trans so it can rape."
And here's Rowling, making the point and hating men just so she can feel better about abusing trans women. No wonder her allies are such dubious people. Maybe there's a reason her supporters can't have the discussion without silencing dissent. Maybe there's a reason Gruber, Walsh, Trump, &c. are the people in her camp. And maybe that's what happens when people abandon science for the sake of hurting others.
Talking of getting twisted knickers over hurtful tweets, not an awful lot was said about the Berlin van driver who mistook the right hand bend for a bunch of gays.
I mean, that actually physically hurt people, being hit by a van, deliberately.
Talking of getting twisted knickers over hurtful tweets, not an awful lot was said about the Berlin van driver who mistook the right hand bend for a bunch of gays.
I mean, that actually physically hurt people, being hit by a van, deliberately.
True, but then the authorities were onto that right away, as is usually the case with physical violence. The campaigning is to persuade the authorities to recognise an issue that they are thought, by the campaigners, not to be taking seriously enough.
There's also a special solidarity of the left with Muslims (even Islamists). There's no need to pathologize the latter cultural passions or occasional rogue extremes with, say, the same intensity as the homophobia of right-wing Western chauvinists, capitalists, etc.
_
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
