Amnesty picked a fight with JK Rowling over trans rights. It backfired

The experts at Amnesty International UK probably thought they were doing vital work last week when they released a report naming “anti-rights” groups across the country for threatening human rights.

But they must have known they were in for an argument when they chose to include a rape crisis centre in Edinburgh that offers trauma support for women over 16. That is because the centre they targeted is not starved of funding. And it knows how to fight back.

Amnesty was picking a fight with Beira’s Place, a centre set up by author JK Rowling with some of the wealth she earned from her Harry Potter books. The centre, named after a Scottish goddess, was founded in 2022 to help “women survivors” of sexual abuse regardless of when the abuse occurred. Rowling bought the townhouse it occupies and set up permanent funding for its services.

It seemed a strange target for Amnesty, the global advocacy group set up in 1961 to campaign for the release of political prisoners. Yet, the decision was serious. Amnesty has changed over the years, and it now has a much broader mission that includes standing up for the rights of transgender people. And it saw Beira’s Place as a problem.

The key to its reasoning was in the support centre’s stated goal: to provide help for female survivors. It was on the wrong side of the argument over trans rights because it excluded men who had transitioned to being women. The Amnesty report drilled into a volcano guaranteed to erupt.

This argument crosses borders, and it is intensely debated in Australia, but the backstory is wholly British. And it suggests that the uncompromising stance by trans campaigners will backfire on them and their cause, even when advanced by those with powerful brands.

Beira’s Place exists because of years of dispute over Rape Crisis Scotland, a separate service once led by Mridul Wadhwa, who was born male and now identifies as a transgender woman. Wadhwa resigned in 2024 after a long dispute about whether female survivors should be able to seek support from women only. A review found Rape Crisis Scotland had caused damage to survivors by failing to ensure this. Wadhwa had argued that “bigoted” rape survivors had to be re-educated about trans rights.

So, Beira’s Place rejected the trans ideology – and Amnesty therefore saw it as a danger. Its report is called A Growing Threat: the Anti-Rights Movement in the UK. It also lists other groups that side with Rowling, such as For Women Scotland, an advocacy group set up in 2018 to campaign against the Scottish government’s plan for a Gender Recognition Act that allowed for the self-declaration of sex.

Rowling has become a hate figure for the trans rights movement because she argues that biological sex means someone born male cannot claim to be a woman. She began by mocking terms like “people who menstruate” rather than “women” because of the sensitivities over trans rights.

But her concerns are deadly serious when criminals are known to have moved to a women’s prison because they identify as female. This is what happened in Britain in 2023 when Isla Bryson was found guilty of raping two women. The crimes were committed when Bryson was known as Adam Graham. After the verdict, the rapist was initially sent to a women’s prison.

Rowling is successful and smart and she is totally unafraid of her critics. She is lacerating on social media and scornful of Amnesty for trying to name and shame Beira’s Place. She is also a survivor of sexual assault and domestic abuse, something she revealed six years ago.

Amnesty should want Rowling on its side. When writing in her early 20s, she paid her rent by working at the African research department at Amnesty in London.

Amnesty, however, is now entrenched in the fight for trans rights. And for many in this fight, there can be no tolerance for those who disagree – even if that means a rape crisis centre loses the right to choose how it helps survivors.

At heart, this is about the primacy of women’s rights. Or, at the very least, the determination of Rowling and others not to see those rights eroded. And Rowling is not a fringe critic. In a move that outraged some but pleased others, she was photographed on June 30 being greeted warmly by Queen Camilla.

Those on Rowling’s side are winning. In its case against the Scottish law, For Women Scotland gained victory last year when the Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex. Someone with a gender recognition certificate – for instance, a trans person who identifies as a woman – would not be called a “woman” under the law.

Another victory came a few days ago. Amnesty deleted the controversial report from its website after sustained ridicule from Rowling and others, as well as a threat of legal action from groups that might suffer financial damage from its “name and shame” list.

This looks like an admission that Amnesty got it wrong, and some news outlets are even reporting it as an apology to Rowling. In fact, there is no apology. There is only regret. And there is a total mystery about what the group actually thinks about its invisible report.

“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,” said a spokesperson for the group when I asked for its view. “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.”

Nobody from Amnesty seems willing to speak up in public about its report. The group’s British office has four people in its press team and a list of 20 spokespeople, including its chief executive, but there is not even a statement on its website to explain its position. When that happens, you know an organisation is running for cover. This could be incredibly damaging for Amnesty. After all, it does not deliver food packages or medical kits; its entire mission as a non-government organisation is about changing minds.

It is too early to know which side will prevail in the ferocious arguments about gender and trans rights. But there is a lesson for any advocacy group that wants to campaign for a cause. When you are too convinced of your own righteousness, you can easily misread the public mood – and lose.