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

I agree, luckily we also have the women (and men) to fight against it.
I occassionally have contact with Scottish Enterprise and with the various science funding organisations in my field (less so since I work for a company that is too big for assistance) and I'm dealing with the same people all the time. They just move from one organisation to the other, I assume every move means a better paid job for them, but they basically go round in circles, the only new people are entry level, not more senior people who could possibly change and challenge things. I bet it's the same in the arts and in other sectors, the same people enforcing each others beliefs and maintaining the systems in place.

Hadley really is a pearl and a huge loss to the Guardian. She's nicely sardonic, isn't she?

When you’ve convinced yourself two plus two equals rainbow, you can’t look at the number four.

fantastic!

Thanks, Igneo.

She's right, although I'd add that there are still men in women's prisons in England. Less visibility of issues in England may not mean it's not happening. Look at the NHS trusts investigated on here, too.

Women in Scotland are watching this issue closely. We wouldn't have known about the WWWW being excluded from the library exhibition if it wasn't for the FOIs. And we'd hardly know about the book festival if it wasn't for brave writers speaking up and journalists asking the questions.

Hadley Freeman in the Times talking about this:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/232b37ff-7e7f-4932-93ee-bc10e0eee33e?shareToken=da2d88c6e4d338c2356f3d3243651199

A slight side step from the main discussion.

I have the paperback copy that I have not opened yet. I'm wondering whether I should keep it as an investment and buy the kindle version to read.

My shitey maths (feel free to correct it!) suggests that makes around 1,600 cases on the basis of 'gender critical' issues (or possibly sex), and 1,280 cases that have been 'successful' - which here means that it's been shown or admitted that women have been discriminated against or harassed.

About 250 per year. Nearly five a week.

Those are just the ones that the FSU have dealt with.

'...since setting it up about 5 years ago, um we fought over 4,000 cases and where they've come to a conclusion we've been successful about 80% of the time. And in our case database on Salesforce, um by far the largest category is sex and gender, about 40% um of those 4,000 plus cases we fought over the past 5 years uh have been defending um uh gender critical women um who've complained about having to share bathrooms, changing rooms with biological men who think they're women....the front line, the people who find themselves cancelled more often, the people who find it more difficult than anyone else to kind of, uh, express how they feel about something, um, even if it's perfectly lawful, um, are women'

Toby Young, Free Speech Union

s

Yes, of course, but many organisations are still operating under Stonewall law.

That's why they keep losing tribunals.

They keep forgetting that they have a duty not to discriminate against/protect ALL staff, not just ones with a certain set of views. Specifically, women's rights keep getting ignored, brushed aside, or as in this instance and as shown by the FOIs, actively surrendered in favour of the rights of people who claim women's rights are causing them 'harm'.

If a man (who says he is a woman) wants to use a woman-only space, and woman wants to use a woman-only space, these organisations are favouring men and ignoring women's rights, needs, and wishes.

If it had gone to tribunal the employee may well lose as their stance could be deemed unreasonable to only have to deal with books that match with their beliefs.
I think the library backed the wrong horse here!

That would be the reasonable stance.

We aren't dealing with reasonable people, and arguably employment laws protect staff more than they protect the public/service users.

Look at NHS Fife, prioritising Dr Upton's feelings over not only female staff, but any female.patients who'd requested single sex care. See also the GMC, the police, etc.

But if the job is to provide a service to the public staff cannot let their own beliefs affect their ability to provide that service. It will be in their terms and conditions.
As NHS staff I cannot refuse to provide a service to someone because I don’t agree with their beliefs as long as they’re not abusive and the beliefs are legal.

Par for the course with Bee really.

Anyone surprised?

Current head of HR is retiring. Coincidentally.

https://www.s1jobs.com/insights/32-New-Head-of-Human-Resources-to-Lead-the-Way-at-National-Library-of-Scotland-%20Edinburgh-August-2025

I don't fully understand how the PSED works in addition to employment law in general, but that's another consideration.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/public-sector-equality-duty/what-s-the-public-sector-equality-duty/

They have a duty to serve the people of Scotland, as a tax funded govt department (and I guess as a charity as part of their charitable aims, though I couldn't find details on the OSCR). Thus they asked for nominations for books that mattered to people, for this exhibition, but in a broader sense, they're supposed to represent and encompass a broad and diverse range of views, not just a narrow set of beliefs/views.

They also have a duty of care to staff, to protect staff from harassment or discrimination, and various other problems. This can be interpreted in surprising ways - a staff member can feel an action is discriminatory or 'harmful'. and the employer could face a tribunal. Discrimination or harassment is taken very seriously.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1879732/hmrc-worker-sent-unwanted-birthday-card-awarded-25k-harassment

I'm not sure what the penalties are for failing to fulfil public duty? But I reckon they're probably the lesser. Most importantly, the staff complaining about this book were probably ready to bring a tribunal/grievance, whereas I suppose the Librarian decided members of the public were perhaps less likely to do so.

So the NLS either faced censure for failing to include a broad range of views of the public, or for allowing staff to feel aggrieved.

Their duties to serve the public are in this instance in conflict with duties of care to staff.

How, exactly?

Employment law offers unlimited fines for successful discrimination claims.

That's how. To be blunt, it's a racket.

The NLS were/are vulnerable both to claims from LGBT network staff and staff with 'gc' views.

As an employer they can be held responsible for any harassment or detriment to staff, including from the public. The state can fine them and tribunals themselves are immensely resource draining and damaging.

Their duties to serve the public are in this instance in conflict with duties of care to staff. So they've chosen staff as that presents the greater immediate risk. I'm not sure that was a.wise longterm move.

Off topic
(may be selling ice to Raindeer or someone covered this better anyway..)

You have a right to raise a grievance on your manager engaging in Active monitoring of your private life via the personal data of you your partner /child and wider community contained (its not just your data) in your SM.

You dont have to but it is beneficial to collect the evidence if someone decides to kick off.

You have a right to a private life and just as no job should be peeking in your gym window because you once said you go there you manager should not be using similar personal data aquired during (due to) work to collect or process other special class data.

Read your HR policy very carefully
Firstly Misconduct "out of work" then Data Protection and then SM and any Public Service Duty type policy.

Take care to understand what is covered what is [(edit) not ] excluded as personal life and what is silent.

Then do a data wipe of links between you (personal and professional) and the job this way if a staff member has collected data you can date when it was removed.

Start by doing data searches in the SM and remove any link which pops
Search your name /Job, Work. Career... etc
The names of people you work(ed) with and in your case expos or projects
And clear the data

Run searches in google Name /Job Name/SM/keyword etc to see if anything pops you can use the right to be forgotten law to wipe any direct links

Then split work and home by removing access.
Block current staff on SM that you use to express a political opinion (° even if you are friends°).
Change you name slightly
VoleForceOne
VolelyForceOne
VolssFOne
Etc.

And as there was multiple email data leek leeks look for you email and if it links you to SM. You may have linked your personal email address to your work address if you ever emailed yourself.

So you should no longer pop up in a general web search.

° Even if you are friends tell friends in advance but ask them not to speak about it as you dont want drama with staff who "invited themselves" into your personal life

If asked by a non-friend on the block explain that its your personal life and you are being proactive by acting on the email and will not enter into a conversation and note who and when and what was said.

Professional digital footprint is again a change of name V.One to break the link.
Think about removing any work phone number / email address if they are not needed.

Then if a TRA in work or your manager is complaining about your PC of belief by cyberstalking you the Job has to first justify how the staffer got your personal data why they were using it (to collect and process a OC view) and how that SM account links you and the Job. The Staffer going around processing your Personal Data by telling others in the job is not you "bring the Job into disrepute" so staff as insiders would not have known your lawful PC belief/political view if not for the Staffer linking your personal data which they should not have to you. That is bullying and harrassment.

And there is nothing in your public account which can be used by a stranger to directly (your profile pic is a data point link) link you to the Job. Even then once you have kept within the no personal abuse generic slur etc of the Jobs Communication Policy no action can be taken.

I just saw what you just posted on a sex abuse and violence survivor’s support thread. You really don’t recognise what appropriate behaviour is. You also have shown that you have no respect at all for the needs of female people.

How fucking dare you post about being others being ‘over privileged’. The hypocrisy of your posting this while demonising a woman seeking help is off the charts.

They are. We know they are. Which is why 1984 is part of the display. And the library talks about challenging views and dissent etc.

It's easier to talk fine words about freedom of speech and belief than actively defend it though.

And a public library!

All those who work in libraries should be aware of the slippery censorship slope that has in the past led to disastrous consequences in society.