Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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
ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 14:38

‘There is a danger that this issue itself will overshadow the celebratory nature of the exhibition.’

How's that working out for you?

The exhibition runs til next April. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 14:39

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/07/banned-books-week-uk-2025/

'Banned Books Week UK returns from 5–11 October 2025. It’s a week to celebrate the books that have been challenged, removed or silenced, and to stand with the people who write, sell and share them. Join Index on Censorship in honouring the right to read freely and the courage it takes to speak up....

Get Involved!

  • Booksellers and libraries are invited to host displays, organise events or highlight books that have been banned or challenged around the world.
  • Writers and readers are encouraged to celebrate books that have come under fire ( globally or locally)
  • Publishers and literature organisations are invited to join the campaign, whether curating online reading lists, hosting events or posting online
Email: [email protected] to take part'

Banned Books Week UK 2025 - Index on Censorship

Join us in celebrating the right to read freely

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/07/banned-books-week-uk-2025

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 14:50

OhBuggerandArse · 14/08/2025 13:16

For Women Scotland and assorted feminists are having a read-in at the NLS, having come on from the Edinburgh International Book Festival... https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1955962105217032237

BoiledBeetle's book is pictured on the table!

National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 14:54

Better pic...?

National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
SirChenjins · 14/08/2025 14:57

Which one is BoiledBeetle's book?!

MyAmpleSheep · 14/08/2025 15:02

A read-in vs a die-in (c.f. Nottingham this weekend) - sort of sums up the relative levels of maturity on both sides.

Boiledbeetle · 14/08/2025 15:09

SirChenjins · 14/08/2025 14:57

Which one is BoiledBeetle's book?!

This is the second volume.

The first volume is hiding in the pile

(And currently the photos are hiding as well!)

National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:16

Apparently TWWWW is not in the reading room and won't be available until January 2026! They really need to get to a book shop....

RedToothBrush · 14/08/2025 15:18

Chersfrozenface · 14/08/2025 12:58

When they realised that the ordered copy of a book scheduled to be in an exhibition hadn't arrived in time for the opening of that exhibition, they could have popped out to a bookshop for a copy. I bet petty cash would have covered it.

Are they so stupid that they didn't think of that?

Or was it awfully convenient, seeing as The Chosen Ones didn't want it in the exhibition at all?

'Didn't arrive'.

Can we check the delivery notes and who has signed for what recently please?

RedToothBrush · 14/08/2025 15:19

MyAmpleSheep · 14/08/2025 15:02

A read-in vs a die-in (c.f. Nottingham this weekend) - sort of sums up the relative levels of maturity on both sides.

Well one side can read a book. The other seems incapable of reading a book...

Largesso · 14/08/2025 15:23

Joanna Cherry posted on X the internal message from Amina Shah which seems to be deploying the same argument the TRAs are making the because it is available, or will be, in the collection itself it’s not banned.

But the exhibition is distinct from that collection and its withdrawal from that undeniably is a ban.

The fact it is not banned elsewhere doesn’t hold up. The public can access exhibitions but have to be readers to access the collection and it’s a process most won’t engage with so this is sophistry.

I’m frustrated that folk aren’t challenging that more and I have NO followers or anything useful to spark that challenge. Is anyone in here got friends with high followers who would challenge rather that accept that point. Even Jon Pike is accepting it by conceding withdrawal rather than ban.

exhibtion and collection are not one and the same.

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:27

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:16

Apparently TWWWW is not in the reading room and won't be available until January 2026! They really need to get to a book shop....

Right. They've had at least three copies delivered to them since.

I'm wondering if we all keep sending copies to them directly they may manage to add it to the shelf.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:28

Oh poo - I must have left the NLS just before they arrived!

One nice (but not surprising) fact from the exhibition- Harry Potter came top with 12 requests.

And a fun image from the display: (spot the librarian's name at the top)

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:30

(I hope the image will appear soon)

National Library of Scotland censors The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:34

RedToothBrush · 14/08/2025 15:19

Well one side can read a book. The other seems incapable of reading a book...

... including those at NSL making the decision about TWWWW it seems...

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:35

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:28

Oh poo - I must have left the NLS just before they arrived!

One nice (but not surprising) fact from the exhibition- Harry Potter came top with 12 requests.

And a fun image from the display: (spot the librarian's name at the top)

Edited

Oh poo indeed!

What was the pic of?

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:36

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:35

Oh poo indeed!

What was the pic of?

It's just shown up....

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:39

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:27

Right. They've had at least three copies delivered to them since.

I'm wondering if we all keep sending copies to them directly they may manage to add it to the shelf.

Well they're not having mine! It's signed and all.

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:42

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 15:39

Well they're not having mine! It's signed and all.

They could just pop out to the local Waterstones. There are 10+ copies in stock...

Jealous of your signed copy! Keep it secret, keep it safe!

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:45

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:27

Right. They've had at least three copies delivered to them since.

I'm wondering if we all keep sending copies to them directly they may manage to add it to the shelf.

At this point I'm thinking that shelling out £22 and sending them one would be money well spent. Supporting excellent wims and doing a little protest at the same time...😏

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:55

Largesso · 14/08/2025 15:23

Joanna Cherry posted on X the internal message from Amina Shah which seems to be deploying the same argument the TRAs are making the because it is available, or will be, in the collection itself it’s not banned.

But the exhibition is distinct from that collection and its withdrawal from that undeniably is a ban.

The fact it is not banned elsewhere doesn’t hold up. The public can access exhibitions but have to be readers to access the collection and it’s a process most won’t engage with so this is sophistry.

I’m frustrated that folk aren’t challenging that more and I have NO followers or anything useful to spark that challenge. Is anyone in here got friends with high followers who would challenge rather that accept that point. Even Jon Pike is accepting it by conceding withdrawal rather than ban.

exhibtion and collection are not one and the same.

How unfortunate that the emails from the FOI directly contradict that assertion.

It has been deliberately, consciously excluded from the exhibition, despite fulfilling the criteria, having four public nominations, and despite the EqIA stating that 'the exclusion of this book could be regarded as an attack on women's rights and censorship of gender critical ideology'. The book had also passed a 'sensitivity check'.

The EqIA goes on to talk about the harmful impact on staff, public criticism, scrutiny from government, and other consequences and that excluding it may damage their reputation and public duty.

The staff network claimed including the book would cause 'severe harm' to staff.

Damian Barr is featured, despite his 'tittering sickly' joke about a transwoman who attempted and failed to commit suicide.

'On 28 May, Amina Shah produces a paper about her decision for the Chair of the Board, recommending WWWW is excluded ”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.
There is a risk that they will withdraw their support for the exhibition and the centenary”. '

I mean there's 34 pages of emails (many of them redacted) and references to other meetings/calls about the decision to exclude the book, it isn't like it was taken fucking lightly.

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:57

BettyBooper · 14/08/2025 15:45

At this point I'm thinking that shelling out £22 and sending them one would be money well spent. Supporting excellent wims and doing a little protest at the same time...😏

I'm picturing copies turning up daily, like Harry Potter's invitation to Hogwarts ...

StanfreyPock · 14/08/2025 16:13

Will these organisations never learn? One after another the Post Office, NHS Fife and now the NLS ships have sunk while the hapless CEOs and Boards were 'protecting their reputation'
I've used the NLS for academic research for many years and am shocked at their craven lack of principles, just unforgivable.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/08/2025 16:16

ArabellaScott · 14/08/2025 15:55

How unfortunate that the emails from the FOI directly contradict that assertion.

It has been deliberately, consciously excluded from the exhibition, despite fulfilling the criteria, having four public nominations, and despite the EqIA stating that 'the exclusion of this book could be regarded as an attack on women's rights and censorship of gender critical ideology'. The book had also passed a 'sensitivity check'.

The EqIA goes on to talk about the harmful impact on staff, public criticism, scrutiny from government, and other consequences and that excluding it may damage their reputation and public duty.

The staff network claimed including the book would cause 'severe harm' to staff.

Damian Barr is featured, despite his 'tittering sickly' joke about a transwoman who attempted and failed to commit suicide.

'On 28 May, Amina Shah produces a paper about her decision for the Chair of the Board, recommending WWWW is excluded ”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.
There is a risk that they will withdraw their support for the exhibition and the centenary”. '

I mean there's 34 pages of emails (many of them redacted) and references to other meetings/calls about the decision to exclude the book, it isn't like it was taken fucking lightly.

Yes it's only a ban from the exhibition not the library. That's still a ban.

Anyway NLS thought hard and decided that seriously pissing off contributors including three MSPs, a journalist, and J K Rowling (by my current count) just didn't count as a big enough risk.

Wonder what they do for an encore.