Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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
TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 13/08/2025 16:23

From the Herald

"..... I would be interested to know what would have happened if a democratic selection had included a non-fiction work advocating for racist, homophobic, or other discriminatory and exclusionary viewpoints."

The hyperhystria in this is off the charts, the book is about the 'lived experience' of many women, from Scotland, 'lived experience' is something they oh so passionate about, but only if it's their over the top fantasy 'experience', real experience does mean squat to them. 🤬

Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 16:22

Can you not have a link and a picture in the same post? Here it is (I hope).

OP posts:
Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 16:20

From the current NLS EDI strategy document.

Reads 'Priority 1'. Laughs in bitter, ironic fashion.

https://www.nls.uk/media/owyjnvkt/edi-strategy-2023-2025-compressed.pdf

OP posts:
AmaryllisNightAndDay · 13/08/2025 16:14

From the Herald:

On May 27, a management paper recorded the network’s warning that they would “have no choice” but to notify LGBT+ partners of the library’s “endorsement” of the book if it was displayed.

Why would an employer allow a staff network to undermine management decisions and threaten to dob them in to the network's "partners"? I do hope the paper also recorded management's refusal to give way to blackmail.

National librarian and NLS chief executive Amina Shah then recommended exclusion, “not due to the content of the book itself or the views expressed, but to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the Library”.

So that went well.

Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 15:48

Herald article which incorporates some of the material in the FOI responses. https://archive.is/LfFRy

OP posts:
AmaryllisNightAndDay · 13/08/2025 15:29

RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 15:06

Well that is a big question that should be found out.

Show quote history

Whoever it was the staff network threatened to stir up shit with them. Maybe someone needs to think about the remit of these staff networks.

RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 15:06

OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 14:46

Who is the sponsor? Is it just the government or did they secure additional funding?

Well that is a big question that should be found out.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 13/08/2025 15:05

The NLS correspondence (with commentary) is an entertaining read.

I'm amused by the dangers of consulting the public. The NLS are right, it's risky to canvas our view on anything, after all we voted to call a research ship Boaty McBoatface. I'm not so convinced that the public need to be told what's best for us by an LGBTQ+ staff network.

RoyalCorgi · 13/08/2025 14:52

ErrolTheDragon · 13/08/2025 14:32

How poor does someone’s reading comprehension skill have to be to think that censoring the book ‘The Women who wouldn’t Wheesht’ would result in those women wheeshting? If they were worried about ‘reputational damage’ surely they could have predicted this would be a massive own goal?

Show quote history

Well, quite. The clue, as they say, is in the name.

I'm getting the sense that these people aren't blessed with an overabundance of thinking skills.

Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 14:46

Who is the sponsor? Is it just the government or did they secure additional funding?

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 14:45

They thought the sponsor of the event would withdraw is such a fucking lame excuse.

Why have such an exhibition if they can't handle it. Now it lots bad for that sponsor anyway!

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 13/08/2025 14:44

ErrolTheDragon · 13/08/2025 14:32

How poor does someone’s reading comprehension skill have to be to think that censoring the book ‘The Women who wouldn’t Wheesht’ would result in those women wheeshting? If they were worried about ‘reputational damage’ surely they could have predicted this would be a massive own goal?

Show quote history

You'd think. But then again, it didn't cross their minds not to piss off a Scotsman columnist by excluding the book that she was responsible for editing, on the grounds that the content promoted "hate speech".

For the activists it's all grist to the mill. But for the CEO and the board, if I wanted to avoid public controversy that's not how I'd go about it.

RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 14:43

ErrolTheDragon · 13/08/2025 14:32

How poor does someone’s reading comprehension skill have to be to think that censoring the book ‘The Women who wouldn’t Wheesht’ would result in those women wheeshting? If they were worried about ‘reputational damage’ surely they could have predicted this would be a massive own goal?

Show quote history

I mean, talk about picking a battle with exactly the wrong group of people.

If anything tells you they haven't read the book, it's that!

ErrolTheDragon · 13/08/2025 14:32

onlytherain · 13/08/2025 11:24

Great letter! What on earth were they thinking? The National Library of Scotland! Never mind the principles of free speech, (true) diversity and inclusion, but have they been living under a rock?

Sounds like it's time to step down for Aminah Shah and the board. The huge reputational damage is done though.

How poor does someone’s reading comprehension skill have to be to think that censoring the book ‘The Women who wouldn’t Wheesht’ would result in those women wheeshting? If they were worried about ‘reputational damage’ surely they could have predicted this would be a massive own goal?

MarieDeGournay · 13/08/2025 14:30

OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 13:46

Wow. Here is the NLS correspondence that was revealed through FOIs. https://ethelwrites.com/censorship-the-women-who-wouldnt-wheesht-and-the-national-library-of-scotland/

Thank you, this is very valuable.

They have gone to such lengths to justify excluding WWWW just because their LGBTQ++ employees said jump, and their only question was 'how high?'.

Their concern about the potential reputational damage to NLS if they include the book was misplaced - their reputation is now well and truly under the microscope because of its exclusion.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 13/08/2025 14:28

So they decided it would be better for the reputation of the NLS to exclude the book.

To paraphrase Ben Cooper, it would be unkind to ask how that's working out for them.

Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 14:16

Russell Findlay making hay, as you would expect https://x.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1955612130402611632

https://x.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1955612130402611632

OP posts:
BunfightBetty · 13/08/2025 14:05

RoyalCorgi · 13/08/2025 12:46

I think it's a great one to add to the list of names we've been called. "Rights-hoarding dinosaurs" is one of my favourites but there was a brilliant one the other day - can anyone remember it? My memory is going.

Really hoping we'll see some inventive Mumsnetters dressed up as Boudicca at the next protest.

Edited to say: I've just realised that the vengeful Boudiccas was in reference to trans activists, not Terfs - ignore!

Edited
Show quote history

It would suit us a lot more than these men who want to identify as Boudicca.

In your dreams, pal.

OP posts:
RayonSunrise · 13/08/2025 13:46

Ha. Dear “FamiliaH “ - no one is mistaking you for Boudicca, vengeful or otherwise.

Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 13:41

International coverage (what price the EQIA now?!) https://x.com/brusselssignal/status/1955600236656607501

https://x.com/brusselssignal/status/1955600236656607501

OP posts:
Original poster
OhBuggerandArse · 13/08/2025 13:33

Shona Robison getting questioned on this by Gina Davidson: https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1955607801231036536

https://x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1955607801231036536

OP posts:
MelOfTheRoses · 13/08/2025 12:57

RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 09:21

The rate went my brother came out was apparently 1 in 10000 in 2007. (The number always stuck with me because statistically it didn't make sense even then - cos we lived on the same street and one of his classmates was also trans)

I take it you are referring to Westminster here rather than Holyrood.

There are 650 MPs.

For 50 to have close family members who have come out as trans, raises some fairly big questions.

Edited
Show quote history

It would not surprise me. I have heard of so many through my DC who went to uni from 2010 onwards. They are all in their late 20s/early 30s now. We also have a wider family member now. It is also the 'queer' identity, being assexual, being accepted for being yourself introspective mindset.

There has been a lot of struggle to get on a career ladder and housing ladder. The ones I know who have had a more clear career path have bypassed all of it.

RedToothBrush · 13/08/2025 12:54

mrshoho · 13/08/2025 12:47

I enjoyed reading those reviews. Amazing what a picture we can build based on a person's review history.

I'm sure one of those is a plopper that posts here as the writing style is quite unique.

Show quote history

It certainly is.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are complaints that I've looked at that, but its literally what you are supposed to do to see if reviewers like similar things to you.