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

TRAs don’t use “unsafe” to mean “we fear for our safety”, they use it as a magic word like “Abracadabra!” to get what they want.

TRAs don’t use “unsafe” to mean “we fear for our safety”, they use it as a magic word like “Abracadabra!” to get what they want. The message is “if I am harmed it is on you” and imo is akin to those men who threaten to harm themselves if their partner leaves them. It is manipulation pure and simple.

TRAs don’t use “unsafe” to mean “we fear for our safety”, they use it as a magic word like “Abracadabra!” to get what they want. The message is “if I am harmed it is on you” and imo is akin to those men who threaten to harm themselves if their partner leaves them. It is manipulation pure and simple.

I wouldn't want to be litigious but I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice that gender critical views are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and that trying to keep your funders happy is not a legal justification to discriminate against the expression of protected beliefs.

Oh dear, sorry for the posting issues…😬

Does anyone have links or archive links to reviews of TWWWW?

Men are afraid of hurty words.
Women are afraid of sexual assault, rape and vouyerism.

It is not.

I'm sure that the Library will definitely be taking this into account...

I mean theres no way that the women could afford to go legal now is there???

More enraged than afraid of the hurty words imo.

They are still keeping a copy of WWWW, and it can be accessed in the library, but they have removed it from an exhibition because of pressure from staff members. I totally agree with your last three sentences.

According to the Times: "Shah later caved in to a further staff backlash, which involved claims the book “essentially promotes hate speech to a particular group”.

This is, purely and simply, a lie. The book does not promote hate speech. On the contrary it consists of a series of essays by women about the debates over the gender recognition bill, and the attempts (ironically) to silence them.

Why are people allowed to lie like this? Why are people like Shah so cowardly or dim-witted that they cave in to these ridiculous demands?

Irony: photo 6 in this collection of images from the exhibition. https://www.nls.uk/whats-on/dear-library/

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/librarian-amina-shah/

Article from when AS took over.

‘To give a voice to those, whom history has silenced or omitted such as women…’

Obviously not ‘those women’.

On the national library of scotland front page they have three articles.

One of them is entitled
Sentenced and silenced: The criminalisation and transportation of queer lives
Discover how 19th-century Scottish law silenced queer voices and controlled identity through class, power and punishment.

Ok fair enough. They want to do representation.

So to the article itself. Its written all about 'queer people' throughout. Read on a bit more to discover more about what they were looking at. Turns out the writer did research by looking at men who were done on sodomy charges and so 'sodomy' was the keyword search.

Hmm I thought. Is this going to be an example of where 'people' means male = default human and a case of the magical invisible women?

What's more, men indicted for sodomy in Britain were mostly gentlemen and skilled artisans, as well as professionals and clergymen. However, the ones who were actually sentenced to transportation were overwhelmingly unskilled labourers and soldiers. In fact, none of the gentlemen, professionals or clergy faced transportation for their sodomy indictments, suggesting a clear class bias in how this punishment was meted out.

Oh so we know what a man is at this point.

Many people argued against transportation on the grounds that it was inhumane or ineffective. Certainly, it may not have had the intended effect as a punishment for sodomy. Several contemporary authorities claimed that queer sex was widespread in Australian convict populations, including among the female convicts.

Woooot, females exist.

In an entire 11 minute read on queer people, thats the ONLY reference to women.

It then goes on to say

Note on terminology
The word "queer" is used in this article as a modern umbrella term to describe a range of non-heteronormative sexualities and gender identities. It’s important to acknowledge that it may not reflect how individuals described here identified at the time, but it offers a respectful and inclusive way to discuss their experiences today.

Ali Leetham (she/her) is a writer and volunteer archivist at the Lavender Menace Queer Books Archive. She co-curated their 2025 exhibition 'Desire Paths: Reading Queer Edinburgh'. Ali is working on oral history projects for Lavender Menace and the Regional Ethnology of Scotland Project. She loves researching the intersections between history, literature, LGBTQ+ culture and food to uncover the stories hidden in the margins.

It just makes me think, why bother going gender neutral, then only actually bother to do research and write about men?? With a SINGLE line about women.

The contridiction between have someone make a comment about uncovering the stories hidden in the margins AND THEN BAN THAT PARTICULAR BOOK OUT OF ALL OF THEM from this exhibition is off the scale.

More to the point, why are people who are so into libraries incapable of actually reading?

This is censorship which is explicitly against all public library principles.

I've just started reading a really good book about post WW2 Eastern Europe. I expect to be mentioning it a lot on this board, as the parallels with gender ideology are so striking. Soviet control involved state-enforced writers, artists and architects as well as central censorship of books, films, radio, posters etc. Historians now look back and ask "how did this happen?"

I am confident that the actions of this publicly-funded library will be mentioned by future historians trying to understand why otherwise intelligent and educated people collectively lost their minds.

@RedToothBrush wrote:
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 don't follow your logic. People "being trans" are not independent events. Have you heard of social contagion? As your brother and his schoolmate were in the same class they might have influenced each other, or both been influenced by someone or something else. Their similar age might also be a factor.

When my children were small, very sadly two people who I'd met through toddler groups experienced cot deaths. They happened quite close together in time: their houses almost backed on to each other. That didn't mean there was a common factor in the babies' deaths, nor a rapid increase in the number of deaths overall.

I agree with previous posters about the wrongness of removing the book from the display.

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.

Oh that is ENTIRELY my point.

But we are SUPPOSED to accept its a naturally occurring totally innate thing which is completely random and nothing to do with socialisation in any way.

Do the buffoons attempting to censor and distort reality and history not realise their actions are being recorded and will be judged forever more. I guess in previous periods this type of censoring occurred often without challenge as there was limited resources other than mainstream newspapers to report on it if at all. An institution such as The Scottish Library should surely be unbiased and neutral. By taking this petty action they bring their organisation into disrepute. And by hiding books in this day and age they only succeed in highlighting and promoting the very thing they wish to hide. Idiots!

There are one or two bits of TWWWW which remind me of Alexei Sayle's satires on Eastern Europe. But he was taking the piss!

Sorry, @RedToothBrush I still don't understand. I get the bit in brackets and that you fully understood the ideas in my post before I wrote them, but how does that fit with your first sentence?

Never mind, I digress. Put my dimness down to the hot weather.

The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

Amazon
Customer reviews
4.8 out of 5 stars
479 global ratings
93% 5 stars
5% 4 stars
1% 3 stars
0% 2 stars
1% 1 star

This is exceptional for Amazon for that many reviews.

Lets look at the 1 star reviews:

Anon Kindle userReviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 June 2025
Foul
(The 5star review for a Short Corn Wavy Curly Blonde Bob Wigs for Women Ladies Synthetic Full Hair Natural Honey caught my eye)

The Badger Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 10 June 2025
Demented stuff from people who rightly remember the fight for women's rights, but - seemingly - have amnesia around the suffering and intolerance that went with it.
(Interesting what they have reviewed. 5Stars for 'The Boys' and 5Stars for 'Invincible', 5Stars for The Expanse - all of which are pretty strong and two of which are pretty damn offensive in places. I've watched all three but all three do not have typically female audiences. Also a 1Star review for a book on Thatcher and a 1Star review for an iron!)

KAM Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 31 May 2024
Borrowed this from a colleague and thank goodness I didn't spend any money on it! Awful transphobia running through the whole book - and written by people who are constantly in the media complaining they've been 'silenced'. If you like right wing women complaining about the unions you'll love it. But don't let's pretend this is anything to do with feminism.
(Has reviewed red Ronseal and Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. Somewhat unsurprisingly the other book got 1star and the criticism that it was factually wrong and didn't understand the Equality Act)

S. cook Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 May 2024
As a woman, the contributors do nothing for me or me feeling safer. This is just a transphobic book. It’s about hating on trans people rather than advancing women’s rights. It’s not feminism.
(24" Monitor which got 5stars and lube - I kid you not - which only got 3. Also The Queens' English: The LGBTQIA+ Dictionary of Lingo and Colloquial Expressions. Can you guess what that was rated?!)

FamiliaH Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 11 August 2024
I didn’t buy this. I read a copy given by a friend. I found it wholly depressing. Nearly every story was written by people with an exclusionary narrow view of feminism. Many of their views were informed by fallacious claims about, mainly, transgender women. About events that never happened and about claims to medical expertise which are nothing of the sort. Many of those false claims wilfully invented by the authors themselves. The book and many of its contributors diminish women as a whole and divide us, not only on the transgender “issue” but on socio-economic grounds and ethnic grounds too. If your feminism is not intersectional, I suspect you are not a feminist at all. It also seems a bit Schröedinger’s woman to claim we are the scared potential victims of “predatory men” whilst at the same time vilifying transgender women like we are vengeful Boudiccas. In the meantime, violent attacks on women by ACTUAL men increase, as we are distracted by this invented panic.
(A transrights badge, a green skirt which is made of layered green netting - the review says it was bought to go on a protest march, a fake pearl necklace, a satin nightdress, a women's sleep bonnet, lipstick, a dog nappy dress, oh and another 1star review of material girls which they only read one chapter of).

GM Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 6 July 2024
My original review has been deleted for some reason but I would strongly encourage anyone with an ounce of compassion or empathy to avoid this dreadful book. Not only is it massively bigoted in nature, it’s also turgid, smug, and poorly written and edited.
(Actually reads books)

Bexxx Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 11 October 2024
Really terrible collection of voices of those weirdly proud to be undoing all the feminist work of decoupling sex discrimination from the patriarchy's pseudo-biological justification of sexism.
Aligning with fascism because you find trans people icky is pretty gross.
(Only seems to review items for 1 star - range of products from crochet hooks, hair clips, portable camping loo, fidget toys, sofa, notepads)

Cfs Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 25 June 2024
Transphobic book
Trans women are women
(This is a woman with short hair. There are pics of her reviewing stuff. Including Wellwoman evening primrose tablets).

D. Swanston Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 5 June 2024
This was one of the most depressing books I have ever read. Makes me ashamed to be a woman. Avoid if you have any compassion for human beings in your soul.
(Women's size 7 zip up boots are the only other item. They got 5stars)

Angelsbookvibes Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 16 June 2024
How can people hate trans & non-binary people so much that they write books on a fake narrative that trans people are a danger.? We literally just want to live
(Actually reads but WOW the reading list is interesting - The Hookup Situation: Colorado Springs University Book 2, Blaze & Ajax - MM Urban Romance Alpha's Rejects Book 3, Breaking You Open - Unforgivable Needs Book 2, A Bunny for Easter, Milked - An MMM Hurt/Comfort Romance Sweet & Twisted Book 1, Don't Say You're Sorry - Hawthorne University Book 2. EVERY SINGLE ONE has a pretty boy on the cover, many in a state of semi-undress)

Clare Couchman Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 4 July 2024
My original review was removed.
(A tomato plant cage - 1 star and some earbud headphones)

Somehow I will not be taking these reviews too seriously. Especially the ones who didn't actually read the book.

I have to say, that was really entertaining!