New guidance from councils aims to make libraries friendlier to LGBT visitors - by hiding gender critical books

[IwantToRetire]

Libraries across the country are being advised to prevent LGBT people seeing “offensive” gender-critical books, the Telegraph can reveal.

Guidance shared as “best practice” among council-run public libraries suggests measures to be more inclusive, including hosting drag queen story hours and making toilets gender neutral, partly to relieve anxiety for women with “masculine” hairstyles.

Advice on handling “transphobic books” states that librarians should not promote works by gender-critical authors, while mitigating the “risk” that LGBT readers might encounter these “offensive” titles on shelves.
The guidance titled “Welcoming LGBTIQ+ users: advice for public library workers” also suggests that staff limit the number of gender-critical books they stock.

In a section of “transphobic” titles it states: “There have been a few titles published which claim to be ‘gender critical’ and argue for removal of trans rights.

“These authors and their work can be labelled transphobic, and the writers themselves Terfs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). We, along with many in the LGBTIQ+ community, find these books offensive.”

The guidance was produced in 2022 by an Islington “LGBTIQ+ library” called Book 28, founded by Southwark Council librarian Isadore Auerbach George, who drew up the advice with Lambeth librarian Colette Townend and academic Dr Elizabeth Chapman, whose doctoral thesis was on “provision of LGBT-related fiction to children and young people” in public libraries.

The guidance has been provided to staff working for local authorities, with Leicestershire, West Berkshire and Gateshead council making use of the advice.

The Book 28 advice is also shared on the websites of professional bodies the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland, and charity Libraries Connected, an organisation whose membership includes every library service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

From a much longer article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/01/librarians-hide-books-from-gender-critical-authors/

Also available by pasting in the Telegraph link at https://archive.ph

I think this is appalling, as I am not in favour of censoring books and it is not the libraries task to do it.
But I am a bit of a hypocrite in the case. Many years back, a book appeared in our local, racially diverse library which I picked up as interesting. I don't know what it was interested me about the title, but the content became increasingly off. It was self published - no matter, but certainly not peer reviewed except by the Halvening or their their equivalent. It argued from a belief that Odin was real, and had created the world for different races to live in their own lands where he had put them. Where they should return. We had National Front in our town, BNP. And Indians, Afro-Caribbeans, Poles etc.
I thought about not returning it, and outing myself. They already had my photo talking to the Anti-Nazis who protested by their stall at the town show because they didn't say who they were collecting for. Several of them were parents of pupils. So I took it back, and when it was back on the shelves, I slipped it down the back (it was only thin). I did this several times, until I stopped seeing it. But I can't exactly criticise these librarians for feeling as strongly about terfs as I do about real Nazis. Oops. But they are wrong.

What if my best friend was murdered? Let's hide all the murder mysteries in case they upset me (that's a lot of books).

What if I'm left/right wing? Can we hide the right/left wing autobiographies too?

What if I can't afford a holiday? Let's hide all the travel writing and guides.

Or, I can't have children, so seeing children's books is triggering for me, they have to be hidden too.

FFS.

But if the 'guidance' is demonising people who hold a belief which is worthy of respect in a democratic society, then a public library which follows this guidance is not complying with their legal obligations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-libraries-as-a-statutory-service/libraries-as-a-statutory-service

2.2 Other legal obligations
In drawing up and delivering their library strategies and plans, councils should consider a number of legal obligations, including under:

• the Equality Act 2010 including the Public Sector Equality Duty

Decisions made by councils about library services may also be subject to legal challenge by way of judicial review.

I read books via my library subscription to borrowbox. They've been doing this on there for a while. LGBTQIAXYZ books were prominently advertised and displayed at the top for you to see when you opened the app, GC books, err, not so.

Many libraries subscribe to borrow box and libby....but does anyone know who runs these?

Caerphilly.

I've never heard of this so I don't think it's use in libraries is very widespread.

In my authority we have the main GC books (Joyce, Shier, Stock, Barnes etc) in appropriate numbers and on public shelves.

They've generated reasonable request nos (between 10 and 30 each) - although to put that in perspective current monster bestseller "Lessons in Chemistry" has reached 500 requests and counting!

A quick check of the South East Libraries regional catalogue reveals a total of 58 copies of Helen Joyce and 35 of Kathleen Stock.

If this group is seriously trying to prevent GC books being in libraries I'd suggest so far it's failing.

I do think most library authorities will just bin it. There isn't anything new in it, just excessive suggestions to include a queer slant in every activity the library runs throughout the year.
But it is a good idea to reserve and borrow GC books to ward off any increased bias in service provision.

This sort of thing has gone on for years. Try finding a copy of The Satanic Verses in your local library. Mine had two copies of Midnights Children but no Satanic Verses. In fact going online I found there wasn't a single copy in the whole county. Turns out one was kept in a city centre University library, not out on the shelves,
but in a cupboard, available to be sent out to a library on special order.

And of course the biggest irony is that significant GC books are either written by Ls or seriously discuss the TQ+ impact on Ls.

I bet there aren’t too many old school L books or L-feminist books being displayed prominently. Forced teaming while throwing Ls under the bus.

Book 28 are funded by public donations, and they are providing guidance in the same way that other non-profit organisations do.

If you object to that in principle, and you object to public libraries taking that advice, then you should absolutely object to gender critical charities offering advice to schools.

I am not sure if these are weasel words or re-writing history.

The "guidance" is in fact a politically motivated campaign to compel people to think the way that this campaign groups thinks is correct.

And those opposing it whether in libraries or in schools are doing so because it is totally unreasonable that an unelected group it trying to dictate other peoples belief.

The irony is of course is that in calling it Book 28 they are aligning themselves with the Tory's Section 28 as each wanted to tell people what they could or couldn't read, and each are both homophobic.

So gender critical feminists and groups like LGB Alliance are counter campaigning as did Gay Liberation against section 28.

If the TRAs hadn't thought they could by back door deception, censor books, this wouldn't be happening.

So in a way it is nice that this group of authoritarian zealots have be so kind and to illustrate to us what their purpose is.

This "guidance" was written by people in in Lambeth and Southwark yet Lambeth libraries has two copies of Joyce and three of Stock and Southwark have eight of Joyce and four of Stock.

So it doesn't look like it's having any influence even in the places you might expect.

Ah, I understand you. If you agree with it, it's OK for non-profits to issue guidance, if you don't, then it isn't.

Well yes, generally people agree with things they agree with and disagree with things they disagree with.

Imagine a Mormon organisation issues guidance to schools that every child should be taught the "truth" of Mormonism.

Then a secular society issues guidance to schools that schools should take a neutral approach to religion.

Now the first one would be a concern if you thought there was actually a risk that some schools could start implementing the policy.

Most people would see the guidance by the secular society as being quite different in nature. Now if they overstepped, and had their own list of things that they wanted children to be taught that were controversial, then that's a different situation.

No. It's only OK for libraries to follow guidance which complies with the Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-libraries-as-a-statutory-service/libraries-as-a-statutory-service

Beautifully put.

Quite, Oldcrone.

Legal compliance isn't something TRAs seem to know much about. Hence all the suing when they ignore it.

👆What she said

Well I suppose it’s a blessing they haven’t done this to make the libraries ‘safe’.

I was recently applying for a job but stopped when I read the bottom of the job description. Apparently they work really hard to provide a ‘safe’ work environment. No it wasn’t clearing land mines, lion taming or deep sea rescue… oh and specific (named) ‘minority groups’ were guaranteed an interview.

Absolutely. We all know they’re not doing this for the benefit of short-haired women.

I checked the Hampshire library catalogue and they have Helen Joyce's book and Sharron Davies' book (the latter of which I have read). Neither are hidden away in the County Store, either. Nothing by Kathleen Stock though.

That's a neat swerve, clearly schools and libraries must obey the law. There isn't the slightest evidence that this advice suggests illegality.

So the story is: some barmy "guidance" is issued and libraries either know nothing about it or just ignore it.
I guess that wouldn't have made an interesting headline for the Telegraph though.