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

[OhBuggerandArse]

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

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/

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.

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.

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.'

https://search.nls.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99118465025604341&context=L&vid=44NLS_INST:44NLS_VU1&lang=en&search_scope=MainCatalogue&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=MainCatalogue&query=any,contains,the%20women%20who%20wouldn%27t%20wheesht&offset=0

'Currently on loan'

On loan until 25 08 25.

I see one can 'suggest a book', here.

https://natlibscot.libanswers.com/form?queueid=2676

'Suggestion for Acquisition

Readers are welcome to suggest items for the Library to acquire that are not already held in the collections. We welcome suggestions of books, eBooks, journals, magazines and other material published in the UK or internationally that would be useful to you.
Before making your suggestion, please search the catalogue for the item.
You should receive a response within ten working days of submission. If you have any subsequent queries about your suggestion, please contact the Acquisitions Team by email: [email protected].
Thank you. We look forward to responding to your suggestion.'

Ooh, story sessions today and tomorrow.

https://www.nls.uk/whats-on/dear-library-story-sessions/

'This event takes place on multiple dates: 12 to 14, and 19 to 21 of August.
We're marking the centenary of the National Library of Scotland in 2025 with Dear Library, an exhibition celebrating the power of books and the value of libraries across the country.
Inspired by the exhibition's Book That Shaped Me feature, we have invited a selection of Scottish writers to read from their own work alongside the books that inspired them on their journey. For six lunchtimes during festival season we will host readings from two writers each day.
Discover some of Scotland's contemporary authors in these intimate story sessions, and maybe find a new favourite of your own.'

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😀

I have had access to a different copyright library, although I don't need to sign in to search.

When I search for "The women who wouldn't wheesht" the only results are one copy in a college library, and an article about it in a magazine, which is available online - and which I could read if I renewed my membership.

Perhaps the paper copy is still moving through the system, and the same at the NLS, whatever they say.

'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'

In fairness I think that linguistic boat has sailed. The US-originated usage is now quite common in the UK. Similarly 'appeal'. We always used to say 'so-and-so is appealing against the High Court decision ...' but now the US form is almost always used.

Would they have refused a book on the 2014 Scottish referendum or Brexit? Sure that might make some people with strong views "feel sad".

Maybe they would describe it as "hateful" or "racist". Thinking doesn't make it so.

Anyway I've just bought and started the book on Kindle. Haven't found anything "hateful" yet..

Excellent response to the weaselly Index on Censorship statement, from Freedom in the Arts. x.com/freedom_in_arts/status/1958442126062006540?s=46

Ooh, that's a damning letter, very well written. The Index on Censorship should be ashamed of themselves. What is their role if not to call out censorship?

An article about the many staff networks within the Scottish government, including the one that called for the removal of TWWWW:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/e5fbb56e-9933-4e83-aa72-07b857e5df02?shareToken=9e10c54a5015fcdb139924043c6b4295

Staff networks sounds like an organised version of 'bringing your whole self to work', don't they?
Instead of just bringing the 'paid-employee-doing-a-dollar's-work-for-a-dollar's-pay' self🙄

What do you think the IBS group members do together?!

Campaign for more public toilets!

'Tanya de Grunwald, an expert commentator on HR issues, said the list of more than two dozen Scottish government staff networks suggested a “complete loss of control”.
“Staff networks have become very popular within large organisations, but this is certainly the longest list I’ve ever seen from one employer,” she said. “This list is a dog’s dinner. What are these groups for? Vague mentions of ‘inclusion’, ‘safety’ and ‘support’ cannot justify this amount of time and attention being sucked up.
“I have serious questions about guardrails and supervision. The mental health groups sound downright dangerous. Unless this is run by a qualified professional, the Scottish government is effectively hosting unsupervised group therapy sessions for some of their most vulnerable and troubled staff.”'

I've just got to the end of the book, and I can't say I found anything remotely "hateful" towards transgender people.

It isn't even about GC arguments (not that those are hateful) but predominantly the Scottish legislative process around gender recognition.

Along with many hilarious and sad personal accounts of the "women who wouldn't wheesht" their creative protests and the harassment, even violence, they faced.

Generally it's egg in face to ban anything without reading or watching it. Like those against the classic Monty Python "Life of Brian".

News and correspondence with the NLS from Lucy H-B and Susan Dalgetty here: https://x.com/EthelWrites/status/1958563864959705261

also a Times piece which I missed earlier in the week, sorry if it's been shared already. https://www.thetimes.com/article/a483c63f-00ab-4988-8aaa-bd9351c99489?shareToken=fc8e888bfbd6a1f9d3487dbee71825f9

Just classic civil service foot dragging - delay, delay, delay and hope that everyone gives up, or other events distract attention.

But they didn't reckon with WWWW!

Oh dear, when will they learn that kicking the can down the road doesn’t make it go away, it just gets noisier and draws more attention?

We will spend more time making people aware of their outrageous behaviour.

I got a reply from my question to them from the compliance officer

reply below

Thank you for your communication of 15 August 2025.

Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book as well as the 200 other titles that were not selected for display. A full list of those publications is available as part of the exhibition.

Libraries are vital places where people can access all kinds of publications for free, and form their own opinions.

We hope this addresses your concerns however, if you feel your complaint has not been adequately resolved, you may request that we take this to stage 2 in our complaints process. This is an investigation stage to which we respond withing 20 working days. If you do want to proceed to stage 2 investigation, we would propose to review in line with the below however, please do advise if we have not understood your complaint correctly.

• To review the decision to not include the book 'The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht' in the Library's Dear Library exhibition.

The outcome you seek from our investigation are that the Library:

• Includes the above book in the ‘Dear Library’ exhibition.

For information, please find below a link to the Library’s complaints procedure.

Thank you again for your email and being in touch with us.

They are refusing to engage with the issue, aren't they? It's so insulting to everyone's intelligence.