The Index on Censorship statement isn't very wholehearted about the protection of WWWW as an expression of opinion, which is what they should be all about.
Some say the book in question promotes “hate”. They’re entitled to that view and indeed entitled to protest its inclusion.
Repeating the very extreme accusation of "hate", even in inverted commas, is making a statement - even if the Index haven't read WWWW, and indeed especially if they haven't read it, it is unbecoming of them to repeat a very extreme, and, as they would realise if they read it, entirely unfounded slur.
It would have been more appropriate for them to say that the book expresses strong opinions that trans rights activists strongly disagree with. There's no need to do their work for them by referring to "hate"
It’s also important to acknowledge that for many LGBTQ+ readers and staff, this isn’t just a political disagreement. It’s personal and painful.
what about the 'personal and painful' impact on the women who had to swim hard against the current to produce the book? It is not the job of the IonC to express the emotions of either side of the dispute, and it's revealing that they only refer to the emotions of one side. They could say 'there are strong feelings on both sides, as the issue is not just political but personal and painful for all concerned'.
Their main concern seems to be for the personal feelings of the LGBTQ+ and for the professional security of Amina Shah who was, poor thing, in a really awkward position:
There’s speculation that Shah could face professional consequences. That, too, would be a mistake. This is, after all, a very fraught space.
The 'professional consequence' that AS already faces is the public knowledge that she caved in, against her first instincts, to what amounts to an ultimatum - bullying, even - from a minority of the NLS staff. Her leadership qualities will inevitably be assessed in the light of her well-documented slide into censorship.
But again it is the tone adopted by the IonC which is surprising:
by all means acknowledge that AS was in a difficult position, but surely the Index on ...what was it again? oh yes, Censorship, should state clearly that AS was wrong to censor WWWW, and that the IonC would offer their full support to her and anybody else who faced difficuties when the book is properly returned to the exhibition.
You know the way we keep spotting Americanisms in TRA discourse, e.g. 'bathroom' instead of 'toilet', or 'hate-fueled' instead of 'hate-fuelled'?
I noticed 'to protest its inclusion' in the IonC statement .
'To protest' meaning to object to something is only a transitive verb in US English. On this side of the Atlantic, we protest against or about something, so we would write 'to protest against its inclusion'.
Linguistic bingo😀