Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

705 replies

OhBuggerandArse · 12/08/2025 23:46

Took it out of their centenary exhibition because the staff LGBT+ network kicked up a fuss. Craven. This really needs massive public challenge and push back - if the National Library isn't able to fend off the censors we are utterly lost. https://x.com/EthelWrites/status/1955390550494023958

https://x.com/EthelWrites/status/1955390550494023958

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
ArabellaScott · 20/08/2025 09:48

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1957919651532533893.html

a thread from Lucy Hunter Blackburn on 'anyone could borrow the book from the reading room'.

Can they, aye? :

'A short story about this line, given to The Times by the National Library of Scotland (NLS) on 12 August.

A fishy tale of a red herring, but more than that, a red herring with a bit of a whiff.

Are you sitting comfortably etc etc 1/14

The NLS line about reading room is obviously a red herring - as the issue is reversing its the decision to put the book on open shelves in the centenary exhibition, after staff complaints - but even taken on its own terms, it's not what it seems./

Background: NLS is one of the UK's copyright libraries. Publishers are obliged to lodge books they publish with this network. NLS's large physical collection is mostly kept in stacks, and most items have to be ordered up to the reading room./

As we understand, WWWW was submitted to the British Library by our publisher in electronic form, which is now a normal way of doing this. But the British Library's IT systems are still in a mess, after a huge cyber attack, delaying the transmission of a copy of WWWW to the NLS./

We know this from the FoI response, which notes that for the Library to be able to say truthfully the book is available in its main collection (missing the point, but leaving that aside, for a moment) they would need to buy in a physical copy. This email is dated 2 June./


Moving forward to last Tuesday 12 August, almost 2 months after the exhibition had opened on 20 June, when the Library gave its lines to the Times: "Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book."/

First thing on Wednesday 13 August, a regular library user (h/t @staylorish) tried to order the book through the online system. At this point, the NLS system was saying the book was not available, and would not be, until...

....next year./


So the line was simply incorrect at the point it was given to the press. On Tuesday 12 August, there was no copy sitting ready for a reader to call up.

If the NLS had ordered a copy in June, nothing had been done with it to make it available since the exhibition had opened./

By Thursday 14th first thing, the situation had changed. Those putting in for a copy were getting this notice. The book was still "not available", but this was now due to being "in transit" until... the previous day.🤷‍♀️/


By the end of Thursday, it was still "not available", but now due to being "on loan" for 6 days until....13 September. (The NLS doesn't lend out books to readers, so not clear what this tells us.)/
Yesterday evening, if you tried to order up the book, you were again told it was currently on loan and not available, but now only until next week./
A copy in the Dear Library exhibition would simply (and unusually for the NLS) have been available there since 20 June for any visitor coming in off the street to pick off a shelf and look at, till next April.

The main collection copy was always a very different sort of thing./
If you want to look at it, you need to join the NLS, know to ask for it, and, for now, join a queue.

So much for "Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book."

But on top of that, there simply was no copy available to bring up to the reading room on 12 August/


when the line saying so was first given to the press. This red herring of a line was inaccurate, just on its own terms.

It remains so, really, until the book is routinely available to passing readers.

The fishy tale of National Library and The Red Herring remains unfinished.

Footnote: "Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book" has been offered to the press again, today.'

ArabellaScott · 20/08/2025 08:16

NebulouslyContemporaneous · 20/08/2025 08:06

I thought it was pretty even-handed, apart from its failure to understand or make clear that the book was initially selected for inclusion and then dropped. It seems to portray that as a piece of misinformation. It says that the book was never actually displayed and then removed,which may be true. But my understanding was that it was fully selected for display (not just nominated enough times) and then pulled.

You're correct. It was nominated 4 times (more than any other book, I think?) assessed for safety, discussed, and selected for inclusion.

Then the staff 'LGBT network' complained. Then angst. Then removal.

Moreover, it seems there never was a hard copy in the library. I belive several copies have since been donated.

NebulouslyContemporaneous · 20/08/2025 08:06

I thought it was pretty even-handed, apart from its failure to understand or make clear that the book was initially selected for inclusion and then dropped. It seems to portray that as a piece of misinformation. It says that the book was never actually displayed and then removed,which may be true. But my understanding was that it was fully selected for display (not just nominated enough times) and then pulled.

borntobequiet · 20/08/2025 07:47

OhBuggerandArse · 19/08/2025 22:24

That is a weaselly take on what happened.

It’s a superficial take by people who don’t understand - or who don’t want to understand - the background or context at all. It’s too kind to Shah. However, it does see it as censorship.

ArabellaScott · 20/08/2025 06:55

Isn't it. I meant to look up their reporting on the other library censorship mentioned to compare.

Its just a short paragraph and is fairly even handed.

www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/07/week-free-expression-united-states-algeria-france-china-india-united-kingdom/

OhBuggerandArse · 19/08/2025 22:24

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 22:11

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/08/the-national-library-of-scotland-when-curation-becomes-censorship/

In which Index for Censorship suggests that just maybe perhaps censoring a book wasn't the absolute best course of action for a National Library. Even if it's a horrible book that will make people sad.

That is a weaselly take on what happened.

OP posts:
DuesToTheDirt · 19/08/2025 21:44

BeLemonNow · 19/08/2025 00:37

Does the National Library of Scotland actually know the Scots word "wheesht"?

Perhaps after they've looked that up they could check the definition of "irony".

Nail on the head!

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 21:32

'Hunter Blackburn and Dalgety have also written to Angus Robertson, the SNP culture secretary, calling on him to take a firmer stance on defending freedom of speech and to reassure publicly funded cultural bodies that grants would not be at risk if they rejected censorship demands.
Robertson has said he is a “strong supporter” of freedom of speech but has declined to comment directly on the row over the book, despite the national library being reliant on the Scottish government for the vast majority of its annual funding.'

He can't just fucking 'decline to comment'. Commenting is his job.

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 21:31

borntobequiet · 19/08/2025 21:23

Which is worse, the NLS or NHS Fife? Probably the latter, but the Library putting up a good showing.

Edited

A library gaslighting readers over censoring a book.

A hospital gaslighting staff and patients over a man using women's facilities.

The personal impact of a man invading women's spaces is grave. Potentially treating patients who've requested a female. That's our National Health Service treating women with contempt, and enabling abuse.

Our National Library deliberately excluding and censoring a book because some staff object to the book's contents ...

Yeah, one can't choose. It's authoritarian, mendacious, abusive, subersive. It undermines faith in our institutions and systems. Both are serious and egregious breaches of the duties of each respective institution.

These are the things that chip, chip, chip away at a nation. The silencing, the chilling, the blithe disregard, the self satisfied refusal to even engage. The arrogance.

The NLS is overseen by Scottish Ministers, and the Board.

'National Library of Scotland Board meetings are held quarterly, in the last week of March, June, September and November.'

(Although if I were on that board, I'd be calling an EGM.)

Ultimately, this comes down to the government, and at some point, the people of Scotland will need to ask what our government is doing to protect our institutions, the interests of citizens, and public trust.

https://www.nls.uk/about-us/who-and-what/leadership-and-governance/board/board-members/

JanesLittleGirl · 19/08/2025 21:25

I'm struggling to understand the strategic thinking that led the NLS to decide that silencing THE WOMEN WHO WOULDN'T WHEESHT was a good idea.

borntobequiet · 19/08/2025 21:23

Which is worse, the NLS or NHS Fife? Probably the latter, but the Library putting up a good showing.

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 21:23

The Scottish Parliament is in recess until 31 August. I'm sure that will be time enough for it all to blow over, the fuss to die down, and women to give up and meekly agree to surrender their rights to be listened to.

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 21:21

Have teh FOIs been put into a newspaper article, yet? They are utterly damning, and need to be widely read.

RedToothBrush · 19/08/2025 21:17

They are hoping it'll blow over and it'll be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

I have my doubts about this strategy.

INeedAPensieve · 19/08/2025 21:10

Ooft @VoleForceOne so it's a case of just digging their heels in and (pun intended), not reading the room?

Wonder how that'll work out for them...

VoleForceOne · 19/08/2025 20:44

This reply has been withdrawn

Withdrawn at poster's request.

Boiledbeetle · 19/08/2025 18:31

MarieDeGournay · 17/08/2025 15:24

That is such a great idea! It should attract a wide range of people, because it's not just us rights-hoarding dinosaurs who are alarmed by this censorship [TRAs may indulge in semantics, but that's what it boils down to].

edited to say: replying to the suggestion of a read-in.
further edited to say to porridgecake that I wasn't suggesting that her dog rolling in fox poo would attract a wide range of people😂

Edited

Bugger! So I rolled this for nothing!

dung beetle ball GIF
user1471471849 · 19/08/2025 12:39

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 08:40

To me it means exclusion of anyone who doesn't share a set of prescribed beliefs. It means policing thought and expression, demanding fealty, and forbidding questioning or dissent. It means inclusion of those willing to submit and active exclusion of everyone else.

Great description ArabellaScott! I feel like printing this out!

OhBuggerandArse · 19/08/2025 11:59

This reply has been deleted

Withdrawn at poster's request.

Any news, @VoleForceOne? It seems beyond belief that there've been no responses yet (to outcry or letters), but, well, you know....

OP posts:
BunfightBetty · 19/08/2025 10:43

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 08:40

To me it means exclusion of anyone who doesn't share a set of prescribed beliefs. It means policing thought and expression, demanding fealty, and forbidding questioning or dissent. It means inclusion of those willing to submit and active exclusion of everyone else.

Absolutely. It’s particularly pernicious in the way it’s dressed up as something forward-thinking, compassionate and fair. When in reality it’s the exact opposite.

ArabellaScott · 19/08/2025 08:40

BunfightBetty · 19/08/2025 00:29

Me too, I actually wince/brace in my body when I come across it. Because what it usually means these days is somebody being in a space or offering they shouldn’t be in, where their presence will cause harm to those who the provision should be for. Some of whom will be forced into self-excluding as a result. .

It never ever seems to be about making sure those with disabilities can be included, or making provision for those who are economically disadvantaged, for example.

To me it means exclusion of anyone who doesn't share a set of prescribed beliefs. It means policing thought and expression, demanding fealty, and forbidding questioning or dissent. It means inclusion of those willing to submit and active exclusion of everyone else.

Swipe left for the next trending thread