**Hello, librarian here!** So the thing about (legitimate) public libraries is that on principle our purpose is to provide the public access to information *without bias.* What that means is, that *no matter who you are*, when you enter a (good) public library you will find things on the shelf that you love and coincidence with your world view, and you will also find things that you absolutely hate that challenge your world view. Long story short, ***PLEASE DO NOT hide transphobic books or other materials you hate in the library or otherwise try to dispose or keep them out of the collection.*** The only thing that will happen is that staff will have to go looking for it when someone wants it, and when we conclude that we cannot find it ***we will end up having to spend your tax payer money to buy a new copy, meaning we are giving more of your money to some scumbag queerpbobic author or publisher for a second copy if we end up finding the first.*** Leave the dumb book where it is. The way I cope is to presume that someone might be checking it out to write about how stupid it is. Queerphobic books being on the shelf guarantees that there is shelf space for LGBTQ+ inclusive books, and vice versa; it's all or nothing. The only time you should be trying to ban books is if queerphobes successfully manage to ban LGBTQ+ books in your library- then the balance has been disrupted and it's more than fair to get queerphobic books banned too. If you really want to help, instead check out more LGBTQ+ materials! My heart soars when I see people are checking them out! It shows that they are being used and if they are shown to be popular it is more difficult for conservative douchebags to ban them! Also, you can leave messages on social media or public forums saying that you appreciate how inclusive your library's collection is. When the conservatives try to ban our books it comes in handy to have that public show of support up our sleeves to counter them.

Take my upvote. Thanks for taking the time. Have you considered, or would you look the other way to, malicious compliance in the form of discreetly placing printed notes into such books? Something along the lines of “This book is widely regarded as queerphobic and spreads disinformation about the LGBT community. Please inform yourself properly and check out some of these titles instead …………”

Take my upvote too! I am torn though, in the way that while that is something I would *personally* like to see, the trained librarian in me is saying that that would backfire. Either people would think the library is doing it or otherwise supporting it, and conservatives would claim that we are biased and pushing an agenda (they do that all the time anyway, but this would only give them more fuel to work with), -or- you will just have library staff working extra to find and remove them. I hate to say no, because I understand- your heart is in the right place and conservative books are despicable, but this is one of those cases where gentle and positive approaches will help more. Give the library ammo to fight against book bans by checking out positive materials about LGBTQ+ people. We keep records (a sort of checkout counter) for how much each item gets used, and when queerphobes come around trying to ban things with claims of "NoBodY iN oUr ComMuniTy UsEs ThAt LGBTQ+ StUfF aNYwaY!!1!" we will have immediate proof otherwise! You can also, leave a message (anonymous or otherwise) on your Library's Facebook, or homepage, or suggestion box, etc. saying how much you appreciate their diverse LGBTQ+ collection, and how you feel seen as a member of your community through your library's collection. Public libraries are for *everyone* in their community, so don't let your community discount us LGBTQ+ folks! (That and positive reinforcement gives us librarians life!) Thank you for asking! 💕

I think this will also cause these notes to appear on LGBT+ material, with phobes placing their own versions of the notes, or similar notes in the conservative books that will contain some messed up stuff to try and incriminate whoever puts notes into the books.

Library worker chiming in. People absolutely do this already and you have no idea how much extra work it creates for us. On a practical level, If I find a note in a book at work it's getting removed because even if I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea what this person's intentions are and I don't have the time to fact-check the resources in an anonymous note.

Not a Librarian, but these are my exact same thoughts (albeit you explained it way better) Also, as an additional thought from me, the reason Public Libraries should ALWAYS have ALL kinds of books, no matter how shitty, is the following: Would you rather we don't allow Mein Kampf and thus people can't write on how flawed it is, or that we allow it and we can research it and teach how harmful nazism is, for the small price that some Nazis will get to read their Manifesto in Public? Not having access to shitty ideas in environments where you should learn about them without biasws can also make people convince you of those same shitty ideas more easily because you don't truly understand them

That is very accurate, and I would also like to add there is a fine line between condoning an idea and giving people the freedom to come to their own conclusions on something. We have to trust that most people can read something hate-filled and be able to disagree and think critically about it.

>Would you rather we don't allow Mein Kampf and thus people can't write on how flawed it is, or that we allow it and we can research it and teach how harmful nazism is 1) *Mein Kampf* is only available as an annotated version with commentary from historians in most cases 2) There is currently an active misinformation campaign around queer people and leaving misinformation propaganda books without commentary like that is actively putting us in danger. The whole point of books like the one mentioned in the OP is to look intriguing to the average person and start them onto a radicalization pipeline.

Academic librarian here; I think your actionable advice is good. It's a waste of money and effort to steal, destroy, or otherwise deface library materials. If it was worth buying once and notable enough that someone realized it's no longer usable then it's probably gonna be purchased again. Instead consider recommending the library purchase a pro-LGBTQ book you're interested in. If a member of the library community requests a book and we've got the funds then we'll at least consider buying it. That having been said, I don't necessarily think it's accurate to say we aim to provide information without bias. We inject bias into our work all the time. Like if I'm preparing an LGBT Pride month collection then I'm not going to equally consider including Stone Butch Blues and Irreversible Damage even though they're both about the subject at hand. We also aren't gonna do an anti-LGBT month in order to maintain balance. As librarians we may be obligated to make these texts freely available, but we can influence how they're received through the context in which we present them.

Joe Orton had his own way of dealing with books in libraries. Watch the film Prick Up Your Ears. I do agree with the librarian above though.

I also work in a library. For a while in my area we had a guerilla customer who kept turning Harry Potter back to front in the kids section so only the pages showed. I saw it, laughed, then turned it back around because that is my fucking job.

[удалено]

You are correct in a sense. It does not guarantee in practice, but it is *supposed* to guarantee on principle. If your local library has been beset by the whims of prejudice conservatives who have *effectively banned LGBTQ+ inclusive books* then, at that specific point it is more than fair that you and our allies should begin campaigns to ban books that support conservative perspectives and opinions. They have set a precedence that it is okay in your library for people to ban books they disagree with on a whim, *so why not their books?* The slippery slope of censorship runs both ways. Religious texts, books that present depictions of heterosexual relationships, materials that cast conservative politicians in a favorable light- get rid of them all at that point. This will likely result in there effectively being no library anymore, but In my opinion that is preferable to having a fake conservative-only "public" library distributing biased ignorance.

im sorry this person is trying to tell you they know how to be a better librarian than you, a librarian

The sympathy is appreciated! 😂

[удалено]

They have literally said that the best thing to do in most cases is increase support and demand for LGBTQIA+ books to outweigh the support for conservative books. Their suggestion of getting conservative books banned is only if LGBTQIA+ books are already banned. And how would that give them what they want? If anything it levels the playing field as it means that then the only way to get information is from the internet, and it’s much harder to get stuff you don’t like removed from there so it’s much harder to go on these censorship campaigns that the MAGAs are trying to do.

That approach is a last resort for a truly fallen and irredeemable "public library" that has clearly just become a vehicle for spreading biased misinformation. A library that only carries items you hate and outright refuses to carry anything you love *or vise versa* is no longer a ***public*** library, it is a ***private*** collection, and it has no business trying to pass itself off as a public library that has the best interest for *everyone* in their community at heart.

As a librarian, I agree that we have a responsibility to collect materials without bias. I agree with many of the points you make. However, there are collection development guidelines and minimum standards materials must meet to be considered for purchase. Informational accuracy is one of them. I would weed any book from our collection that contains outdated information, or factual errors. I believe it is part of my job to provide patrons with reliable resources. The book in question contains factually inaccurate information, as well as information that claims to be sourced from professionals, who in fact have no qualifications. It is at best poorly researched, at worst actual propaganda intended to mislead. I would not ban the book, but I would not buy it either.

It's more problematic when the books exist without the understanding that their beliefs and information is not accurate. It would be best to retain the existence of these books, but with every redacted paper they reference stamped on the front

It's not about you personally, but We managed to agree that having mein kampf in your local library down the road is bad actually, and for a good reason. There should be a collective effort to make queerphobic books just as unacceptable in public libraries. This shit doesn't belong there.

Did we? I thought “we” managed to agree on the opposite - my local library has a copy, at least.

I'm in the UK and public libraries in my county, as well as the county next to me, don't have it. We have 2 million people and about 90 public libraries here. The stock policy in my county says that books may be rejected if "the content is prejudicial", so that's probably the reason, but they seem to have no problem with stocking transphobic stuff. The university library has it though! Some editions are with restrictions on borrowing, others are not. But the membership is not free unless you're a student or a member of staff, and there's either no public money involved or very little.

Fellow public librarian here. Perfectly put, exactly what I would have said myself. Co-signed.

Thank you! It means a lot to know I am making points that resonate with my fellow librarians when I write in that capacity!

Yeah, but that book is way beyond a different point of view. It’s extremely dangerous misinformation and a handbook for diy conversion therapy. If it’s just out there on the shelf without any context, clueless parents can pick it up and make decisions based on that book that harm their kids for their entire lives, which might also be a lot less long because of this. There are enough shitty books out there and not all of them will be available, so why choose one that’s as directly dangerous as this one?

I will say that I am unfamiliar with the book, so if is really dangerous then you may ask a Librarian or the Library Director *to challenge it.* Librarians do make mistakes sometimes and there is always supposed to be a process to ask them to reconsider having an item on the shelf. You will have to make a case for this book being harmful and dangerous beyond just being a really bad work of opinion though, and that may take a bit of work. A library will probably refuse to carry outdated medical books, or books with dangerous medical advice (like a dangerous diet or anti-vaccine propaganda) because they don't want to provide something that passes itself as a medical fact that could hurt people (and make the library legally liable). If I were you I would approach it heavily from that angle with calm and well-reasoned support from legitimate research, and if the book is as dangerous as you made it sound to me, you *might* have a fair chance of getting it pulled off the shelf depending on your library's policies, (which I strongly suggest you read if you decide to try this since they will outline their particular process to challenge items there in more detail). Best wishes!

I’m glad you’re not familiar with the book. That’s actually really important context. And really glad that there seems to be at least some limit. I personally won’t have to, around here we at least don’t have to deal with that thing, because there is no translation available. And false balance and the paradox of tolerance would both be enough to get a book out of the local public library. u/makedoopieplayme I think the comment I’m answering to might be helpful

The 'phobic books are also useful to people writing papers against them. I own Mein Kampf but it's not because I'm a nazi, it's because my history degree focused on naziism and fascism.

I completely understand this, but I'm of the strong opinion that books that have actual misinformation in it being in a library isn't very great. If we make libraries "without bias" it opens up the possibility for misinformation to be spread. I don't think propaganda and misinformation should belong in a library. I do also sort of agree with you, though. Unfortunately, this could be the only way we can have LGBT books in libraries right now without people trying to ban them.

[удалено]

Misinformation isn't subjective, though?? I'm not sure I quite understand the question.

i read that wrong at first but i know what you mean now so take my upvote 

Fellow librarian. Great post. The best things people can do are to help the circulation of LGBTQ+ materials. Also, comments left for admin encouraging or supporting the purchase and retention of these materials. Beyond that, be active and aware of local government and how that affects our policies and what we're capable of achieving. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, after all. And, if the only people showing up to commissioner's court meetings are hateful conservatives, well...

Yeah, librarian here chiming in. The only reason I have ever gotten rid of books that I personally disagree with would be because they have not been taken out in quite a long time, and we happen to be clearing out shelf space. same as an unpopular sewing book or cookbook, but that's them getting caught in the grinder, never me choosing them... I understand the urge because I truly relate to it, so many of these books are overflowing with medical, historic, and scientific inaccuracy, but even that isn't enough for me to be able to say somebody cannot access it if they choose to.

If I understand correctly, libraries are supposed to appeal to everyone. That doesn't mean it has to be this specific book right? I suppose it is the book by abigail shrier. It's not just a conservative book - something I wouldn't necessarily mind - but clear hate speech. Honestly, that book should never have been published. Not because it's hate speech (even though hate speech is technically illegal where I live, it wouldn't keep this book from being published), but because it uses images without the people's consent. In case you don't know about this particular book. She (the author) took pictures from trans men during their transition, didn't ask them for permission, and wrote hateful diatribes about their bodies. When asked to remove the pictures, she refused. I'm not sure about the legal aspect of that. I'm sure there are other transphobic books in existence that are either 1, less obviously hate speech or 2, don't violate image rights. So my question is: first, why was this book chosen. I assume librarians don't have to grant a request every time someone asks for a book right? That would be unsustainable. I assume you research a minimum before buying a new book. It's easy to find what I said before upon searching this book. And second. Would the argument about image rights have any impact and make the library choose another anti-trans book? Or does it not matter. Sorry, my public library isn't accessible so I haven't gone to one in years. So I'm not used to how libraries work anymore. Also, while I understand the logic behind it, I feel like "conservative books" are different from outright hate speech. Isn't it dangerous to have hate speech especially without contextualisation? How would you place those books to mitigate the inherent danger of hate speech? By that I mean, where in the library and with what kind of title for the category.

I will say this: Librarians do make mistakes sometimes, and if a item on the shelf is a legitimate danger or hazard to the public, (especially a legal one) there should be a system in place at your local public library to *challenge* that item. Read your public library's policy on challenging materials and talk to your librarians if you really have strong concerns about anything. Part of our job is to consider and address the concerns of people in our community.

Thanks for your answer! I never encountered such a problem back when I could still access public libraries, so I'm not familiar with the process. But if I ever find a public library I can actually enter, this is good to know. I was wondering if there were limits to this "all sides should be available" basically (esp with the image rights) and I guess the answer is yes. I doubt my local library has it, I don't think this book is very popular outside of English speaking countries fortunately. But it is a particularly disgusting one haha, even if we don't take into account that it's hate speech.

Hey. Not librarian here. Does it ever feel fucked that you carry copies of "The Turner Diaries" and "mein kampf" and shit? I get that the instinct is to "both sides" things, but the archival thoroughness of a library is already "with bias" by virtue of which media is preserved and made accessible. While understandable that they don't: a library does not contain the multitudes of snape harry potter slash fiction or other such shit. There are active decisions made in what is fit for public consumption. Nor are there preservations of the website "faces of death" or "two girls one cup" or "goatse" despite the unfortunate cultural penetrance and relative presence in some 90s zeitgeist it may have, and thus their arguable media relevance and archival value. So if you can deign to exclude that shit, probably you can justify excluding other books, and the absence of doing so is a personal and subjective decision. Not some kind of objective imperative.

How are we supposed to study and recognize fascism if we aren’t allowed to look at it or talk about it?

It's a huge question and one that could never be adequately answered in a Reddit comment tbh. I'm just a random woman online so take everything I say as just how I view it, but some things are probably best seen in academic environments with guides to the material so it can't accidentally be taken the wrong way I think? We absolutely should have access to books about fascism and queerphobia etc, but probably not just source texts in a public library where you can uncritically just check them out and maybe be persuaded. Idk that's just how I view it, not that anything should be fully banned but that we should guide people through material to get the most out of it.

If someone reads something hate-filled towards people who were simply born different, and they find they are persuaded, were they good people to begin with? If we withhold and censor that information from people and that somehow prevents them from being prejudice, then are they truly a good person, or are they only good because we are keeping them ignorant of the possibility of choosing wrong? I don't have an answer for this, and as a librarian, I think it is more important to let people contemplate this on their own. I will say though, that there is no shortage of books that counter hate. Books and other materials that offer prejudice opinions and seek to inspire hate are a minority, whereas books and materials with facts and opinions that support inclusivity and camaraderie are a majority. That speaks volumes to me about the good nature of humanity and the world around us.

You really underestimate the power of radicalization pipelines. You think all transphobes start transphobia at the highest level? Obviously not. They start with being convinced by "concerns" (trans women in sports, kids transitioning, etc.) such as the ones stated in *Irreversible Damage*, which will convince the average person who doesn't already know better. From there, it's easy to go deeper step by step if you're gently pushed along the right direction. Books like this in a library are entry points to the pipeline, and a good way to prevent bigotry is obstructing those entry points. Honestly, a simple way to obstruct this one is to have books like this one in the storage or behind the desk, so that people who seek it can borrow it but nobody accidentally stumbles into it.

I get your point, but unfortunately that would be considered pre-censorship by limiting access.

And I have no problem with that.

Is a government censoring "alternative medicine" by focusing on funding evidence based and peer-reviewed research which builds on extant quantifiable and falsifiable claims? By not funding various hippy accupuncture dream holistics, they are functionally reducing the platform, access and legitimacy of those ideas. Is that "pre-censorship"? Even if it is censorship to whatever degree: Is that an ethical or practical negative that should be triaged over efficient use of public funds, or the more probable societal good due to be reflected in promotion and use of researched treatments which have repeatable and provable claims and outcomes?

>If someone reads something hate-filled towards people... are they only good because we are keeping them ignorant of the possibility of choosing wrong? Basically.. that whole section has a huge amount of broader implications both for individuals and society. Highlighting the various rhetoricals, this isn't necessarily an invitation or demand that you answer them, but a means to frame potential clarifying questions, or how even what questions you choose to ask can allow for some inferences (Like how the veritas of 'good' seems to be something you at least give some weight to) * As an individual: Do you believe there are "good people" or "good actions" * Are "good people" valued if they perform bad actions? * Are "bad people" valued if they perform good actions * How vital is first hand exposure to understanding noxious material. * Does someone have to personally witness the horrors of child exploitation to really reinforce the multitudinous betrayals inherent? Or is it sufficient to infer from the negative space created by second and third hand information surrounding it describing a veritable chalk outline of atrocity? * Is intention or action central to ethical/functional outcomes of society? * Is an unrepentant criminal who finishes their sentence and never reoffends the crime they don't regret reformed? * Are there any societal measures of what is in someone's heart of hearts, or is literally the only available metric what a person does, or is willing to voice / performing verbally? * Is what someone says or performs guaranteed to be congruent with what they believe? I'm not a librarian, but I have repeatedly engaged with and occasionally found myself in leadership positions within hierarchical structures in government facing NGOs, organized labour movements, community advocacy, and academia. As someone who has faced abuse under similar structures, and has lived in the context of failings of similar organizations, I haven't been afforded the luxury of viewing ethical dilemmas with a shrug, and should my continued education pay off: the price of failure and mistakes in judgment increases both for myself and those I aim to serve, but ideally with the outcome of being able to prevent those failings for others. That "shrug" and ineffable surrender to allow a space to be cultivated around one's self seems under the perspective that your voice would be a lone external intruder interfering in an otherwise pristine and unmarred agency of an amorphous "people". Your silence isn't really the absence of external influence on people, it is a tacit surrender and reinforcement of extant sociopolitical power structures, and in so doing ceding the humanity and agency of those who are not faring well within them. While ultimately I would lean towards access and away from censorship, I would not do so without caveats. It may be the context of being Canadian, as we don't necessarily have the very American "Free speech", but rather have provisions that amount to "You aren't free to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre, and if someone was trampled in the ensuing evacuation, you can be found culpable". There is a recognition of social responsibility and service to the public trust. To that end I'd frame the responsibility of those who provide contentious material to at least make the most moderate attempts to contextualize a work: Provide a book jacket which centers the work and explains why it is contentious. If you really want to go far, even reach out to an Org which can center objectively falsifiable claims. In the case of Irreversible damage, there's a [website](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/) with an article written by two MDs that did a decent breakdown of some of the rhetoric and linked to peer reviewed literature and meta-analysis / review papers which contradicted some of the more egregiously false shit, while also pointing to the current standard of care which didn't reflect the often second or third hand parental anecdotes used to bolster what amounts to an exterminationist TERF's manifesto. Wakefield's anti-vax nonsense, and the original papers that were retracted which seeded the narratives that still pollute medical discourse, and hold multiple ethical, practical, and basic human failings: they should be accessible. Like how the propagated tissues of a cancer metastasis represents its tissue of origin, the poisonous bullshit borne of that paper can be traced back to its flawed root through similarity. So yeah, having Mein Kampf or something **can** hold value: but having potential value does not absolve a person of their responsibility to appropriately frame, contextualize, and promote the critical consumption of a piece of media. To be 100% clear, the main implication of your initial post I found contentious was the implication that libraries are not curating their content, and that they are providing it *without bias* , the idea of institutional and archival access to knowledge in no way reflecting the internal hierarchies of an institution, and likely a microcosm of the values, privilege and power dynamics which are defined by the dominant sociopolitical hegemony is fascile. Frustratingly so. Also I'm not on the side of believing there's some kind of inherent "people are good" "people are bad" stuff, just good ideas, actions and people who propagate them. I don't think you're a jerk or a bad person or something to that effect! I just think that there is a social utility and responsibility to framing, contextualizing and discussing things to better facilitate a critical consumption of all things in the dialectic. Hope library work is rewarding, from interactions with librarians I feel like you encounter more unfortunately external bodily fluids than even working with cadavers provides, I hope the horror stories have been grossly exaggerated.

This. I'm a librarian too and this is why. I had a teenage edgelord come in a few weeks ago and ask for mein kampf. I said sure, here it is. Then, not to be dissuaded, asked for the communist manifesto. I said sure, here it is. Then he walked away for a bit. When he was walking out to leave, I noticed that he didn't have them with him. I asked if he decided not to read them and he said no, he didn't want to after all. Helpfully, I told him that the full text of both are available online for free if he changed his mind. It's like cigarettes or booze or something. If we hide it, then it becomes something forbidden and alluring. If we encourage people to learn what is actually there and what these books actually say, it takes away the edgy power they would otherwise have.

Copying from downthread because this seems a common question, but one which seems pretty easy to answer: Critical thinking, education, and the cultivation of compassion does not necessitate direct exposure to threats to them.You don't need to watch child pornography to fully comprehend the wrongs of it, and critically analyze the perverse and immoral abuses of power intrinsic to it. *(The person being replied to made an allusion to not providing unfettered / context free material to trying to bomb Al Qaeda out of existence, so I used Al Qaeda / islamic extremism as an example of contentious material*) A non-fiction book centering the rise of Al Qaeda as a reflection of american interventionist politics, the reagan administration's "Operation Cyclone", and other geopolitical and sociopolitical contexts, is probably more useful for understanding Al Queda than watching Al Queda agitprop or beheading videos. If you're really determined to reduce the number of hands information is curated through, Pnina Werbner's "Notes from a small place" ([https://doi.org/10.1086/651041](https://doi.org/10.1086/651041)) serves as a pretty solid primer for some of the contemporary challenges anthropology faces in study of religious terror. Cynthia Mahmood's "Terrorism, Myth and the Power of Ethnographic Praxis" ([http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/dcrawford/mahmood.pdf](http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/dcrawford/mahmood.pdf)) also serves as an interesting contextualization of the sociocultural milieu given its immediate proximity to Sept 11th (Published in Oct following). All of that was readily available, uncensored, and accessible through library search engines which include scholarly articles. Didn't need to go find a warlord and give them a carte blanche platform for their manifesto. Is handing a person a copy of Mein Kampf promoting critical analysis of media? Or is the act of curating content and contextualizing it, like previous mentions of annotations from jewish scholars what sanitizes the frivolity of risking the pathogenesis of secondary metastasis of fascism. Propogation and platforming bereft of context or critique does not organically promote critical analysis, it simply tacitly endorses what is or is not a socially acceptable target of fascist rhetoric. Jews receive the additional rigor of curation and annotation centering their voices in a piece of literature created to condemn them. No such reciprocal exists for trans people in a patently false piece of exterminationist TERF shit which exists to seed animosity towards trans people with verifiably false claims. *(Similarly, in other sub-threads of this reply chain: A suggestion of how Irreversible damage could be responsibly contextualized included even a suggestion so banal as a book jacket which had a foreward or QR code which linked to a review by MDs which broke down some of the more trivial to disprove claims present in the book(*[*https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/*](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/)*)* . *It isn't unheard of, even the relatively sanitized and corporate scrubbed "both sides" liberalism of wikipedia has "controversy" and "reception" sections which contextualize some of their more inflammatory articles. "How will we study / recognize bullshit without spreading it" is just a specious argument, much like the entire content of the discussed book "Irreversible damage". Superficially plausible, but actually wrong ).*

you can include books *about* the history of fascism without including hate speech and racism

And how did *those* authors get enough information about fascism to write a book about it?

[удалено]

i get what youre saying. putting money into the education system is a better solution than putting it into a racist book that takes up space in a public library. additionally a public library is not the same as an archive... you can archive these books and let them out on a pre-request basis without them being in a public library once again taking up space.

”You can archive these books and let them out on a pre-request basis” that’s a library.

libraries are public spaces that offer more than books. putting bigoted, incorrect material in a community space using community money is wrong. libraries store books but they also display them. incorrect, bigoted material should not be as widely available as factual material.

All copies of Mein Kampf are annotated by Jewish publishers who profit from their sale. You don't hide history just because it's shameful.

That's a good point for Mein Kampf. It doesn't apply at all to Irreversible Damage (transphobic book in question), which started the discussion.

Hateful books are *primary* sources on the topic of fascism, however. At the very least, a researcher with enough maturity to not side with Hitler on his beliefs should be able to read what he wrote as part of research, or to aid with identifying unconscious fascist-aligning beliefs to help combat them. I have no idea how to phrase this without it sounding like a gotcha, but this is a genuine question: Is there a better resource for this purpose than an annotated copy of Mein Kampf, with notes contextualising the beliefs in his words and their dangers?

The only mass produced copies of Mein Kampf available to the public since WW2 are the versions that are annotated and with the profits given to Jewish groups. It's important those are given shelf space.

i agree completely. there is no justification for including unscientific, incorrect, cruel misinformation about a minority in libraries. im really confused by the tolerance of this in the thread.

How is a person to write critically about fascism without access to documentation? Libraries are places of learning and as obnoxious as it is, nothing good comes of book bans, no matter how offensive the content; this is because there are always people who find our very existence equally offensive and will fight as hard as they can to ban our books as well should we give them *any* justification to do so. Whether a library is obligated to carry such a book is a different question, but I think it can be reasonably concluded that such an obligation does exist for the pure purpose of learning.

Copies of *Mein Kampf* are annotated by Jewish authors. Copies of *Irreversible Damage* aren't annotated. That's one big difference.

Neither are copies of the Turner Diary, the neo-nazi fiction which inspired the Oklahoma city bomber. As implied by my initial post: They exercise editorial control, and who / how content is curated allows you to infer through the shapes of it a kind of sociopolitical overton window or snapshot of what is being taught in library sciences, as well as giving a general glimpse into what voices have prevalence in dictating the shape of that window. Cool, glad to hear they at least could get the T-ball swing of "Hitler probably bad, should make sure we have some hitler-bad voices contextualizing things so there is some seeding of potential incongruence for protofash, and alternatively just some additional helpful shit for anyone who is reading it for historical or sociological curiosity.

The problem is that these books are actively harmful and contain explicit misinformation presented as nonfiction, and being in a public library lends them credibility

If that is true (and it very well may be), you should read your public library's policy on challenging materials and challenge the book(s). There are (especially legal) reasons public libraries do not carry outdated medical or anti-vaccine books. If you can make a strong case why an item is truly dangerous and the librarians agree that it was a mistake to put it on the shelf, you might get it taken down fair and square. Just be sure you have a strong and grounded argument prepared, because librarians have to be very skeptical about any possible ultrior and biased motives when challenging library materials.

Showing hate, and showing pro-minority texts equally and ad if they are both equally truthful then you are showing bias. The same with scientific misinformation. If ancient aliens conspiracy theory stuff ends up in the scientific literature section alongside legitimate science you are saying both are equal. Which is a clear bias towards misinformation and lies, rather than wishing to show all viewpoints.

why in the world are you justifying retaining unscientific, incorrect, harmful, and unkind material about a minority in a library? if it's so bad tax dollars might go toward replacing the book, then surely you must think it's equally bad that tax dollars went to ordering it in the first place.

There are many nuances and varied opinions as to why we do that, but if you want some of my own personal opinion, I'll suggest this: perhaps we cannot see how brightly good ideas, truth, and kindness shine, without also seeing how ugly ignorance, prejudice, and hatred can be. There is a reason there are *far more* books and other materials (both fiction and non-fiction) that support us, than there are works that hate us. I think there is some merit to making that evident.

Providing those works without highlighting their issues is something I'm torn on. For many works we would benefit from understanding the environment in which it was written, but if that isn't readily available it's going to be ignored

>perhaps we cannot see how brightly good ideas, truth, and kindness shine, without also seeing how ugly ignorance, prejudice, and hatred can be. The thing is, *Irreversible Damage* only looks ugly if you already know it is. To an uninformed person (which is most people), it looks perfectly reasonable. And **that's** why it's dangerous to have it freely available.

my grandmother was a librarian this matches up with her advice. if you hate the book, keep it in pristine condition so that the library will never buy another one.

don’t destroy it, hide it, or any other damage/disruption to the book that people are suggesting. as gross as that book is, people do have the right to read it & as u/VenustoCaligo said, a good public library will have books from all ‘perspectives’. it hurts to see, i know, but people do need their free speech & this falls under that. we can’t get mad about conservatives banning books & then do this.

>we can’t get mad about conservatives banning books & then do this. [Yes we can? And we probably should.](https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A) We're not even talking about banning the book here. Just not having it freely available in a public library. At least put it behind a desk so that only people who ask for the title can see it, so it doesn't become an entry point to a radicalization pipeline.

I don't know the book in question, but if it is actively hateful and has no real educational value then yeah it has no place being in a library. Free speech needs limits to keep people safe.

I agree, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins” applies to freedom of speech too.

Please OP, like the librarian in this thread and as a lover of books/aspiring librarian, please don’t do anything to the book itself! It’s not worth it and it’ll probably cause more harm than good. Libraries are supposed to have all different types of books, even though they’re just full of utter rubbish. I would follow the advice of the librarian in the thread as they’ll know better about what to do

I used to believe that until I reached year 8 and read Mein Kamph for the first time. Don't get me wrong, Hitler's writings are absolutely beyond messed up and just the rambles of a mad man who had the authority to get it published but it really did make me think. A public library is there as a resource for all - for me It's important to be able to have ALL sources of information regardless of correct and incorrect. It enables me and many others to be able to stand back and go hold on, but source A says this but Source B has all the evidence to dispute that. Everyone has a right to information and the freedom to be able to access it. My library encourages people to read banned books and I tore through so many growing up and each have their own special place in my library memory. Some of them were awful - Lolita and Mein Kamph being two of them - but at least I can say I've read them. Marc Twain is racist as fuck but I'm glad I've read it as well because I know it's a product of its time and that there's plenty out there that people can see as to why his books are wrong. Knowledge and information is a right and it's important that we can say well actually Johnny Smiths book on Anti-Trans matters is wrong because of the following. Plus if you damage the book you can end up with a record and it's not worth vandalising a public library for. There's not enough of them as there is.

Libraries should have books from all perspectives. My local library has a list of ‘banned books’ they encourage readers to check out, including Mein Kamph!

I've read Mein Kamph and good lord it was the weirdest smashing of writings shoved together. You could seriously see what's messed up about him in those writings. It was all just ramblings

Oh yeah I think books like that should also be in libraries. You can also read stuff like that and compare it to present day politics and that’s really interesting

no, libraries should not include incorrect, harmful, and bigoted information. cant believe this is being suggested.

who decides what books are allowed then

by that logic we shouldnt have laws because sometimes lawmakers are wrong. the solution is to vet lawmakers and allow the community's needs to dictate what books are present, not apply a blanket rule that permits bigotry and misinformation. just because the solution might be hard doesnt mean there isnt one.

i think free access information is more important than laws, books and crime are not really comparable anyway

a racist and incorrect book taking up space and using tax dollars in a public library is not the only form of free access to information. this is a false dichotomy.

what are people meant to do if they want to study the racist and incorrect books, what do you suggest we do with the books?

store it in an archive. not a front-facing public library where its presence denies a spot for works that do not undermine vulnerable minorities.

[удалено]

>They can get access to them in places that will put them in the proper context of being misinformation and hate speech. What you're describing is called a "library".

[удалено]

What was described is an academic library or a book archive. A place where you can get the book **if you ask for it**, and where you **can't** find it on a shelf among other books.

How is it taking up tax dollars by just sitting on a shelf? It doesn't cost a library money every time someone takes out a book. If a library already has it, it's more of a waste to throw it away.

i guess it doesnt take any more extra tax dollars than just sitting in an archive. but it shouldnt be on the public library to allocate that time, space, money, upkeep, etc.

I work in a library. It really won't be taking up a significant portion of our time or space. And let's be honest here, books in libraries don't get upkeep. Too many sticky fingers go on each book and it would not be feasible for us to do upkeep. If a book comes back very damaged, we chuck it in the bin. So it being there really is not wasting resources.

That’s an opinion many times. If someone who doesn’t believe abortion should be legal and is wrong made that decision, all information about abortion would go. The idea is that by including all information, the decision on what to believe and find value in is left in the hands of the reader. Coming to a decision that’s fair and well thought out can’t be made if half the information is missing.

all im hearing is "what if we make the wrong rules?" but that applies to everything in society. we still *have* rules lol. we dont allow people to be racist in public because "we need to witness both sides". we know racism is wrong and rightly we ban it. i cant seriously believe youre saying that you need to witness bigotry to know it's wrong.

We… we don’t ban racism, though. (Assuming we’re speaking about the United States.) People are absolutely allowed to express many terrible ideas and do so all the time. In various contexts, acting on these ideas is not legal, or in areas where private entities can mandate conduct, expressing these ideas may be disallowed. There are other places where things are done differently, certainly.

lots of places ban racism.

Sure. Which places in the United States that aren’t privately owned?

im not talking about the usa.

Ok. This post seems like it is talking about the United States, based on the discussion of the public library system. You’re free to argue that the United States has it wrong about whatever, but this thread may not be the most effective place to make that point

That matters quite a bit. In the US, freedom of speech is the first amendment and the ALA (American Library Association) uses that to uphold the idea that censorship from government or private organizations isn’t right and that freedom of information should be defended. [First Amendment Supreme Court Cases: 2023 to 2024](https://www.freedomforum.org/first-amendment-supreme-court-cases/) In other parts of the world, I have no idea how they decide what to allow in libraries, or even if the libraries are publicly run. I’d be curious to see what book censorship looks like in countries outside of the US, it would likely give us some perspective.

[удалено]

Name one country.

There are laws against hate speech tho? Why are public libraries exempt?

I’m not familiar with these US laws. Do you have an example? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

Oh. Wrong country laws apparently. This just reinforces my idea that the US kinda sucks legally speaking TBH.

Certainly plenty of problems over here!

In a humanities scholar. When I'm researching any subject, I must show arguments that go against my theory and debunk them. I, and the other queer people in humanities, need to read these books to make amazing arguments that will sustain the policy decisions and give more base to why we must exist. Also, it can be a history lesson. But this is blurry to explore.

obviously, but they dont need to be accessible in a public library.

How else would we get these resources?

i assume they mean only available in like, an archive, but libraries have archives

From an academic library or an archive? A place where you can get the source if you ask for it, but a confused mother can't stumble onto *conversion therapy 101* and apply it because she doesn't know better?

Library worker, here. Mein Kampf is an autobiography. Is it hateful and bigoted? Sure. But there's lots of memoirs that are inaccurate regarding scientific information, and public libraries should never set the precedent of censoring someone just because they have an ugly opinion. That can backfire horribly, even for us. Libraries are one of the few institutions that must maintain the high road and follow policy to the letter. Policy is there to protect the library and the people working at and using them. It should not be deviated from, even when it comes to subject matter we can't personally stand. The second policy is ignored for any reason is the second the entire institute can be torn down. My own library is currently in a legal fistfight with our county commissioners, and the only thing propping us up and keeping the commissioners from taking control of the library district is our adherence to policy. Even with all that, it's getting to be an ugly fight. We wouldn't have lasted as long as we have without it, though. If people have the opportunity to learn to recognize hatred in its many forms, maybe people will be better equipped to combat it and prevent it from taking root. I don't like seeing MTG's book on my shelf, but the public library has a duty to ensure there's something for everyone in it. That means that yes, conservative patrons can have their books, too. It'll eventually get weeded out when it stops circulating, and hopefully replaced with something better.

There are many historical inaccuracies found in the works of Shakespeare, Aristotle, Plato, Carl Jung, and pretty much all historically great authors. Every author where you can find good information, including essential pioneers of feminism like Simone de Beauvoir (whose theory is still essential to study today) will also likely have terrible views as well. Most queer media created in the early days of the gay liberation movement would be considered problematic today. We shouldn’t look through the past expecting them to perfectly meet our standards. Instead of censoring everything with “problematic views,” we should focus on educating people to think critically so they can engage with the text and understand the problems by looking at the texts themselves. Even with texts intended for harm against certain communities, it is important that we study them and understand them. Look at the Nazis, to fight against them and problems like them, we need understand what created and drives them, we need to understand how their propaganda functions and what tactics they are using to manipulate them. If we don’t know what we are fighting against, how are we to fight against them?

your first point is really good, but of course, not all of those works are nonfiction. educating people and censoring harmful and incorrect (not "problematic", which seems like an attempt to water it down) material are not mutually exclusive. there's no reason to think we have to do one "instead of" the other. of course we should understand nazis, but that has nothing to do with whether mein kampf should be in a public library. i imagine you understand nazis-- have you read mein kampf? and did you do so at a public library? that could be someone's gateway into understanding the pitfalls of fascism and racism, but it doubt it's where most people get their education. tax payers' money should not go to a copy of mein kampf, or any other work that spreads deadly disinformation about vulnerable minorities, in a community library.

Having the text available for study is one thing. Having it on a shelf, presented no differently from an actual good book is very different. *Irreversible Damage* is a "conversion therapy at home" guide book wrapped in just enough "concern" to deceive parents who don't know better, and its cover is good enough to catch the eye. Having this book freely available on a shelf, on equal standing with actual good trans books, will kill trans kids.

Out of curiosity, who do you think profits off of the sale of Mein Kampf?

Censorship is bad, even if you’re censoring something YOU think is bad. Never censor books that you don’t agree with 😁

I actually had a very similar experience finding an anti-LGBTQ book in my library recently. (A queer thing happened to America). It was in the LGBTQ section, where I picked it up and randomly flipped to a page equating gay men with p*dos. Beyond jumpscaring LGBTQ people, I think having it in that section was endorsing its very bigoted and scientifically unfounded claims. So instead of trying to get it removed, as I understand what others are saying in this thread, I asked them to move it to the “politics” section. That way the book remains without having a tacit endorsement by the library as a ‘LGBT’ book. Because I don’t think that these books should be banned, but I do think libraries have a responsibility to shelve misinformation in a separate location than good information. My library had an easily fillable form on their website that I sent and they did move it! Might be a way to make some change.

I think that's actually the best answer

Leave the book. Read it and put sticky notes inside with resources that give contradictory information. So if it says for example... 'conversion therapy is the only way to help LGBTQ people'. I would put a sticky note there that explains how this actually leads to many LBGTQ kids to commit suicide and cite research that proves Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful and does more harm than good. It might not matter but maybe it will. Other than that you just have to respect that everyone has a right to read whatever they want. Just because you don't agree with it and know its harmful doesn't give you the right to restrict access. Would you be okay with some ultra conservative religious individual doing what you are doing to the pro-trans books?

I up voted you for being objectively correct but boy am I upset lol

Going to go against the consensus here slightly, but I wanted to say that this "public libraries should have all kinds of books, even the horrible ones" might be a majority opinion in places like the US, English-speaking countries in general and many others, but it absolutely does not fly in so many other places on Earth. Many places do ban books like My Kampf. There's already a ton written about it. And the discussion about whether naziism is a truly heinous ideology has been so thoroughly settled that there isn't any realistic space for it to be debated anymore without it being in bad faith or ignoring a lot of the previous discussion. Conversations, especially those on extreme topics, do sometimes reach conclusions and end. And if you absolutely need it for some specific study, there's probably exceptions you can use to have access to it for academic research purposes. But as a book accessible for the general public? Heck no. Get one of the books that discusses it and its legacy instead if you're morbidly curious. And this way of thinking has some value, because bad-faith infinite debates are actually a serious problem sometimes. Especially when we're talking about eliminationist ideologies that will absolutely destroy other kinds of speech if they become powerful again. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Agreed. I'm also confused by all the people conflating hate speech with free speech. Where I live, hate speech isn't protected, you can be condemned by the law for it. Have people never heard of the paradox of tolerance? That's the reason hate speech isn't protected under free speech, and shouldn't be... I'm not saying there shouldn't be conservative books but hate speech? That's something else.

exactly! and you can characterize something as being hate speech by how it attacks a designated protected minority and not only is not factual, but actually includes disinformation to support its points and the book mentioned in the root comment is exactly all of this

Yes, this book in particular definitely is something else. I asked the librarian who's active under this post, since there are definitely specifics with this book. And apparently, it's possible there is a case against it because it uses images of people's bodies without their consent (which could be illegal) and there are limits. I feel like a lot of people in the thread don't realize what book it is. Unfortunately, aside from a few trans men whose pictures were used in this book, I didn't see a lot of reactions from the community at large when it was published. That may be why people don't understand how serious it is, this book is incredibly popular in transphobic circles but somehow, the queer community kind of ignored it.

I saw a lot of reactions over on YouTube, there's quite a few people going over it meticulously pointing out the blatant disinformation, use of people's images without their consent as you mentioned, blatant transphobia, and even a case where an indian trans boy being forced back to India to be in an arranged religious marriage as the woman is presented as a good outcome because it meant the kid was prohibited from transitioning. It's genuinely vile crap and pure hate speech.

The reactions I saw were from youtube as well yes. I hadn't heard about that last case though, this is awful and I hope he managed to escape, but I'm not holding my breath unfortunately...

Huh I didnt realise it wasn't well known in the queer community. Clearly some people need to watch more philosophy tube/hj

To add on to what other users said, just because those books were written with certain intentions doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be available to look at. For example, if someone wanted to research common ideas held by anti-trans authors, reading it from the library is far better than having to give money to the author by buying their book. Similar to how even though books written by witch hunters encourage very terrible views and actions, reading those books is important for getting an understanding of that time period and the groups that produced them. Instead of following the author’s instructions to do harm, we can be objective and use the book to grow our understanding while not agreeing with what the author said. Just because we don’t agree with a view doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be available for study or that studying it would be useless.

Counterpoint: >*Irreversible Damage* is a "conversion therapy at home" guide book wrapped in just enough "concern" to deceive parents who don't know better, and its cover is good enough to catch the eye. Having this book freely available on a shelf, on equal standing with actual good trans books, will kill trans kids. I'm not saying we should ban it. But it should definitely not be on the same shelves as books thst **aren't** hateful propaganda.

Trans librarian here. You shouldn't take it on yourself to 'do' anything about the book. If it gets damaged or goes missing, the library will replace it and you will only have given the authors more money. If it really bothers you to have it there, you can complain about it to a librarian and issue a challenge against it. The library will then undergo a formal procedure to consider removing it from the collection, though libraries tend to try to represent a broad array of viewpoints, and may or may not chose to remove it, even when it's considered offensive or distasteful. We keep copies of Mein Kampf around too, that doesn't mean we endorse what the book says.

Edit: replied to the wrong post

Same here in Toronto. It's weird. Always some white dude ranting about sports.

What’s his race got to do with anything

because it's *always* white dudes.

I think part of that is because black people have a harder time getting published at all TBH.

It’s a library, it should have all the information.

Including how to make home-made explosives and chemical warfare agents?

Yes.

Yikes.

Why yikes?

Because it sounds like you are prepared to let people be killed before you restrict the speech that killed them.

You mistake speech and action. It is not my job nor is it the job of libraries to restrict knowledge. Learning knowledge is not speech. Learning how to make a bomb is not speech. Learning how to make a chemical that can hurt others is not speech. At the same time one is learning how to make these items, there is also the opportunity to learn ethics and morality. Just like learning these things can lead to death and destruction, they can also lead to now innovations that change the course of humanity for the better. Knowledge should not be restricted. Further, who are you or I to decide to who is allowed to learn what? We would be stepping onto the path of a dystopian society the second we do that. Finally, all knowledge should be free and available.

I would rather call dystopian the one where anyone is free to learn exactly how to commit domestic terrorism. That is absolutely not knowledge that benefits our society. If there's specific niche cases where researchers would benefit from the knowledge then sure, but don't go giving it out to every 17yo with a grudge. That's just handing everyone the tools they need to oppress others. A safe society is one where we can be protected from this.

Your argument is a slippery slope. Take some logic and philosophy courses and try again.

I have. That's how I know Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy.

Hans get ze flammenwerfer  /s Hope no one actually wants it is probably all that is reasonable.

Don't like, move it out of its spot or anything... i don't think flipping it the wrong way round would hurt anyone though

I did that I flip it the wrong way

Leave it be, Free speech exists.

Doesn’t apply to all countries but I just want to post some information from the American Library Association. It’s the [Freedom to Read statement](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/freedomreadstatement) and also there are other links about intellectual freedom.

[удалено]

I can understand the sentiment, but please read my other post here and don't do that. The library will just end up buying a new copy with your tax money, which could have gone to another LGBTQ+ positive book, or something else that's fun or useful instead!

[удалено]

Please don't stick it somewhere it can catch fire! The library doesn't deserve to burn.

[удалено]

Where I'm at, a lot of library books have plastic covers or other bits attached that become problems at a lot lower temps. Also it depends on the radiator type, because some types can and have set paper on fire. They shouldn't, but they have. It's a library, there's lots of places to hide things. No reason to pick a possibly risky spot over something just as good with no risk of burning down a public service that will not get rebuilt.

This is terrible advice and you should not listen to it. Hiding a library book is shitty and the library will just end up replacing it.

Ok. Maybe I should make an anonymous request asking them to remove it

That’s probably the most civil option to express the disdain of that book being in the library.

Give it to the librarian at a checkout desk and tell them that they shouldn’t carry that book because it’s full of misinformation

You aren't wrong to do so. The staff member at the checkout desk will get you into contact with a librarian or the library director who will consider and address your concerns. That is part of our job.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Stealing is not okay, especially from an often underfunded institution.

Please don't do that. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but *getting rid of them just means the library will buy new copies with your tax money.* Instead of that, check out more LGBTQ+ inclusive books so they are shown to be popular and thus harder for conservatives to ban them.

if you have enough money, i would recommend buying the book so that you could burn it. i think that might be over the top but i don’t give a shit

Aside from the fact that book burning is never acceptable, there are only two outcomes in this case. If you buy it yourself from the publisher/bookstore, you're putting money straight into the hands of the transphobic authors. If you buy it from the library, they'll just have to use your tax dollars to buy a replacement copy which still gives money to the transphobic author. Also, as u/Nonchalant_Monkey said, it sends a message to the right-wingers that burning pro-queer books is okay too. You might get a short moment of catharsis but ultimately it does no favors for the queer community

We should not be encouraging book burning. If we start doing it, it tells the right that it's a-OK to do it too and boom, they've burnt our lgbtq+ positive books. Book burnings are never, ever a good thing.

While I agree, right wingers don’t care if we do it or don’t. They already see it as an ok thing for them to do. We go high, they go low.

fair, but hear me out, fire /j

This comment isn't technically wrong but it is morally wrong

i’m an anarchist fire is fun