Irreversible Damage at Wellington City Libraries

Do our libraries serve our community, or just activist groups?

I’d like to bring to public attention an incident that cuts to the heart of the purpose of our public libraries. Does a library exist to make “all kinds of knowledge and information readily available to its users” without being “subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship”, as Wellington City Libraries claim on their website? Or do they exist to further the ideas and agendas of particular activist groups?

Recently I made a request to Wellington City Libraries (New Zealand) to purchase the popular and critically-acclaimed book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.  I’m aware that several other people have made the same request, and typically the library does purchase books for which there is a high demand. This book is also currently held by Auckland, Nelson,  and Christchurch libraries.

Wellington Library staff declined my request, for a series of vaguely-stated reasons which are thoroughly inconsistent with other purchasing decisions they have made. Notably, the library refused to confirm or deny whether its purchasing decision was the result of activist pressure.

Like many people, I believe that Irreversible Damage raises important questions concerning the impact of current medical practices on the health of our children. Access to this information should not be restricted to those with the financial means to purchase a copy.

Those who do not share my evaluation of Irreversible Damage should still be very concerned about the precedent set by the library’s decision. Would you like to be able to read the works of authors with a wide range of opinions, or only those that are regarded as ‘politically correct’ by activist pressure groups?

If you share my concerns, I suggest the following actions you could take:

1. Provide feedback to the library expressing your concerns. You could write in your own words, or I’ve suggested a short message below. Please be polite - offensive messages are counterproductive.

2. Make a request for Wellington City Libraries, or your own local library, to purchase Irreversible Damage or a similar book (see below).

3. Express your concern to your local Wellington City Councillor.

4. Join and support the Free Speech Union, who advocate for free speech and against New Zealand’s worrying trend towards the suppression of dissenting views.  (Please note that the views expressed in this article are mine and not necessarily those of the FSU).

Providing feedback to the library 

If you provide feedback to the library, you could say something like:

I was concerned to read about your recent decision not to purchase the book Irreversible Damage, despite the fact that it appears to meet your stated criteria for book purchases. Your  decision causes me concern that the library’s collection choices are unduly influenced by people with particular ideologies, and leads me to doubt whether I can trust the library as an unbiased source of information.

As a ratepayer, I would like to see the library reconsider its decision regarding Irreversible Damage. In future, I would like to see you better live up to your stated values of  making “all kinds of knowledge and information readily available to [your] users” without being “subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship”.

You’re welcome to cut-and-paste the above, or of course just write your own thoughts.

Edit: Please consider leaving a comment below if you do provide the library with feedback, to give an indication of how many people are doing so. My Substack dashboard indicates that an encouraging number of people have clicked through to the library’s feedback page, but this is a somewhat ad-hoc way of counting.

Requesting ‘Irreversible Damage’ or a similar book

You can use Wellington City Library’s website to suggest that they buy a book.  Unfortunately Irreversible Damage is now outside Wellington library’s one-year purchasing window, although you could try anyway. Alternatively, you could request the purchase of a more recent book covering similar themes, such as Trans: Where ideology meets reality by Helen Joyce (a critically acclaimed book by The Economist’s Britain editor). I made a purchasing suggestion for Trans a couple of weeks ago, but so far I’ve received no response.

Please feel welcome to suggest relevant alternative choices (within the one year window) in the comments below.

The original emails

I have reproduced my correspondence with Wellington City Libraries below, so that you can make up your own mind about the merits and importance of this issue. I hope this article is also helpful to people who would like to be better informed about the controversy surrounding Irreversible Damage, or who need to raise this issue with their own local library.

At the library’s request, I have redacted the name of the staff member who responded to my initial email. I’ve also redacted the contact details of everyone involved for obvious reasons. You’re welcome to leave a comment at the end of this article if you wish to contact me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021, 15:47 BUS: Libwebsite wrote:

Kia ora,

Your suggestion to buy:

Author: Abigail Shrier

Title: Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Thank you for your suggestion to buy.

We have carefully considered your request and regret that we will not be purchasing this item.

This decision has been based on a number of factors which could include availability from our contractual suppliers, how recently it was published, format, its suitability for inclusion in a public library collection, budget and space restraints, and the anticipated customer demand.

For more information about our purchasing criteria, please see our Suggestion to Buy webpage at www.wcl.govt.nz/about/services/suggestion.html 

However, we are able to offer an Interloan. There is a charge for this service. If you would like to organise this please contact the Interloans Team on  (redacted) or email (redacted).

Thank you for your interest in Wellington City Libraries.

Kind regards,

Collection Development Team

Wellington City Libraries

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Laura Lopez

Sent: 02 September 2021 07:42

To: BUS: Libwebsite

Subject: Re: STB

Kia ora,

I am very disappointed to learn of your response and that this title cannot be available at the Wellington City Libraries.

The book has very good reviews and is one of Amazon's best selling books. 

I would appreciate it if I could get some more information regarding your reasons to decline to purchase this item as I believe this book does meet all the criteria listed in the WCL website.

Nga mihi,

Laura López

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 18:13, [Name redacted] wrote:

Kia ora Laura,

Your email questioning Wellington City Libraries’ decision not to purchase Irreversible Damage has been forwarded to me. 

Here at Wellington City Libraries there are several criteria that our Selection Team weigh up when deciding whether or not to purchase a book.  Decisions are made after a careful balancing of many criteria, rather than considering just one data point.

In the course of our decision-making process on this particular book, we looked at both scientific reviews and popular reviews of this book, and also looked more widely on the topic of gender dysphoria and transgender issues (the subject of this book).  In reviewing these, it was clear that different countries’ social and medical services treat gender dysphoria and transgender issues in different ways.  There were also a range of contradictory reviews about the scientific methods used by the author, which indicated that there is not a wide base of expert consensus about the factual rigour of the book.

In order to meet our key priority of serving our local community, we consider whether the material is applicable to experiences here in New Zealand.  

Assessing whether Irreversible Damage reflects the lived experience of New Zealanders and of New Zealand’s social and medical systems would have formed part of the decision-making process.

Ngā mihi,

[Name and contact details redacted]

Team Leader, Collections & Technical Services | Wellington City Libraries

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Laura Lopez

Sent: 20 September 2021 15:58

To: [Name redacted]

Subject: Re: Irreversible Damage - library decline to purchase

Kia ora [Name redacted],

Thank you for your response to my question about Wellington City Libraries’ decision not to repurchase Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier.

I’ve read WCL’s policy on ‘suggesting items to buy’ and your response carefully.  If I understand you correctly, WCL’s rationale for not purchasing Irreversible Damage was that:

1. Irreversible Damage is not suitable for a public library; because:

2. Irreversible Damage received mixed popular reviews; and

3. There is not a wide base of expert consensus about the factual rigour of Irreversible Damage; and

4. The stories told in Irreversible Damage do not reflect current medical practice in New Zealand; and

5. Irreversible Damage is not relevant to New Zealand.

I must admit that I found your response a little difficult to interpret, so if any of the points above are incorrect, I would welcome your clarification.

I’ve researched each of the points above, and I would like to provide some additional information which your panel may not have been aware of when it made its decision. I appreciate that this is a long email, but as I note in the summary, my concerns about this matter are wider than whether the library decides to purchase this particular book, and I believe they merit your consideration.

Point 1: Irreversible Damage is not suitable for a public library

I’m aware that Irreversible Damage was previously available from WCL, as I found this book at the Johnsonville library on the week of 19 April, and made a note to borrow it at a later date.  I presume that this means that the book was assessed by your staff as meeting WCL’s criteria for purchase. I also note that Irreversible Damage is held by Auckland Library, Christchurch Library, and many other libraries around New Zealand and the world.  I believe that these facts indicate that the book is clearly suitable for a public library.

Point 2: Irreversible Damage received mixed popular reviews

Irreversible Damage is hugely popular, and has received a level of critical acclaim that exceeds that of many other books the library has purchased.  On Amazon,the book has received 3,805 five-star reviews out of 4,555 reviews, and an average rating of 4.5 stars.  It has also received positive reviews in a number of prestigious publications, including Commentary and The Spectator.  The Times of London named it one of their best books of the year. The Economist, which is one of the most widely respected news publications in the world, named it one of its books of the year and reviewed it as follows:

A critical look at the enormous rise in recent years in people identifying as trans, especially among girls. It covers a brewing scandal over the provision of irreversible treatments, whether surgical or pharmaceutical, to teenagers. Predictably controversial—yet there is not a drop of animosity in the book.

Auckland Council Libraries currently holds three physical copies of Irreversible Damage, in addition to an electronic version.  There is currently a queue of 34 borrowers for the book. This shows that if Wellington City Library purchases this book, it is unlikely to gather much dust on the shelf.  

Screenshot taken 10 September 2021

Of course, Irreversible Damage has also received a number of very negative reviews. This is to be expected of any popular book that takes a strong stance on a controversial issue.  I do not believe that this provides a convincing reason for not purchasing a particular book - people who dislike the book are free to avoid reading it. 

If the library was to avoid purchasing any books that receive both very positive and very negative reviews, this would significantly limit the library’s ability to inform public debate.  I find this concerning.  Is it the library’s intention to apply this principle as a general policy in future?

Point 3: There is not a wide base of expert consensus about the factual rigour of Irreversible Damage.

Irreversible Damage is primarily a work of journalistic reporting, rather than a science or medical textbook. Nonetheless, the book carries several positive reviews from scientists on its dustjacket, including from Kenneth Zucker, an adolescent and child psychologist and chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders; Ray Blanchard, former head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; professor of psychology Michael Bailey; and evolutionary biologist Heather Heying.  Other positive scientific reviews include a review in Skeptic magazine by physician Harriet Hall, and a review by Jerry A. Coyne (Emeritus Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago).  Writing in Psychology Today, Christopher Ferguson, professor of psychology at Stetson University, disagrees with several claims made in the book but appears to consider its central thesis plausible, and concludes that “I think that there are some valid ideas here to consider... I would encourage people to read Irreversible Damage if only to understand the arguments it makes, as well as to oppose the loathsome efforts to censor it”.

There were two very negative (and ideologically loaded) reviews of the book published on the website Science Based Medicine, but these reviews have been thoroughly and convincingly critiqued*.  Researcher Jack Turban also wrote a very critical review of the book in Psychology Today, but his own work on this topic has been criticised by other researchers for being ideologically-driven and making claims that go beyond the evidence.

In short, the thesis of Irreversible Damage is a matter of reasonable scientific dispute. 

Meanwhile, WCL has previously purchased a large number of books which make claims whose factual rigour is disputed by relevant experts.  For example, the library carries around 38 books on homeopathy, the majority of which appear to promote this practice (including the no-doubt factually rigorous Treatment of cats by homoeopathy).  As you may be aware, expert bodies have described homeopathy as scientifically discredited and voiced concerns about its safety.

Additionally, Wellington City Libraries carries the book ‘The transgender child’ by Stephanie Brill, which strongly advocates for the use of cross-sex hormones in adolescence (example quote: “If you say no to hormones, they can and will find them on the street”).  This practice is highly controversial, and is discouraged and highly restricted in Sweden and Finland.  Wellington Library also carries the children’s storybook I am Jazz by Jessica Herthel.  In a 2018 review, including citations to multiple scientific studies, endocrinologist Michael Laidlaw concluded:

 “I Am Jazz contains false information and very troubling omissions. For these reasons, I believe that the book is not appropriate for children of any age to read. Children who are experiencing gender dysphoria will likely be harmed by this book, as will children who do not have the condition.”

While not everyone will agree with Dr Laidlaw, or with the Swedish and Finnish positions on gender transition, it is undeniable that Wellington Libraries already carries books that make scientifically-debated claims about transgender issues.

Finally, it should be noted that many scientifically-inclined people (including myself) like to read influential books with which they disagree. Even if you disagree with their arguments and evidence, such books are helpful for understanding how other people think about important issues.

If the library purchases books which represent only one side of legitimate scientific controversies, this is likely to erode public trust and support for the library. Is it the library’s intention to apply this principle as a general policy in future?

Point 4: The stories told in Irreversible Damage do not reflect current medical practice in New Zealand

There is evidence suggesting that this is incorrect. The ‘affirmative care’ model which is critiqued in Irreversible Damage appears to be widely practised in New Zealand, as documented in this report. Also, the library purchases many books concerning international current events, and I believe that many of your readers would be concerned by any plans to stop doing so.

Point 5: Irreversible Damage is not relevant to New Zealand

I’m not sure if you really intended to suggest this last point, but if so, it’s unconvincing.  There are at least three highly controversial law changes currently being considered by parliament which relate directly to the issues discussed in Irreversible Damage (i.e. the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill; Proposals against Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination; and the proposal for self-identification of gender on birth certificates).  As the earlier screenshot above shows, Auckland City Library patrons certainly seem to believe that the issues discussed in Irreversible Damage are relevant to New Zealand.

Activist pressure

I’m aware that public libraries have been subject to significant pressure from activist groups to withdraw Irreversible Damage from circulation.  I recognise that it can be difficult to withstand these pressures, and I am sympathetic to the difficult position the library finds itself in with regards to this book.  Nonetheless, I believe that bowing to activist pressure on this occasion would set a worrying precedent, and would be contrary to Wellington Library's Customer Charter, which, in describing the library’s Collection Objectives, states that:

Wellington City Libraries provides collections in a range of formats representing the diversity of views suited to our communities and that meet their current and anticipated needs.

I understand from this statement that "representing the diversity of views" should be a criterion to be taken into account when deciding to purchase books about gender identity, equally to other subjects.  Similarly, your Collection Policy states:

Wellington enjoys a rich cultural and social diversity, and the library’s ongoing goal is to remain responsive to all areas of our communities. The focus is expressed in the Mission Statement ‘to connect our communities to knowledge, wonder and possibilities’.

The library endorses the UNESCO Public Library Manifesto which states that “Collections and services should not be subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship, nor commercial pressures.

It also endorses the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) statements on Access to Information and Intellectual Freedom: No library materials should be censored, restricted, removed from libraries, or have access denied to them because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or pressure.

The Public Library is the local centre of information, making all kinds of knowledge and information readily available to its users. The services of the public library are provided on the basis of equality of access for all, regardless of age, race, sex, religion, nationality, language or social status.

In summary

In summary, my concerns about this matter are much wider than whether the library decides to purchase this particular book. I’m unconvinced by your stated rationale for deciding not to purchase Irreversible Damage, and concerned that your decision was perhaps shaped by activist pressure (whether internal or external to WCL and the Council).  I believe that if this was the case, it would be contrary to your own principles, set a worrying precedent, and discredit the library as an unbiased source of information.

I urge WCL to reconsider its decision not to purchase this book.  If this decision remains unchanged, in the interests of the transparency expected of a taxpayer funded organisation, I would encourage you to:

1. Provide a clearer explanation of the criteria which were used to make this decision, and whether these criteria are consistently applied across the library’s purchases.

2. Clarify whether the library received pressure to remove this book from circulation (e.g. from activist groups or from others within the Council); and if so, whether this pressure played any part in the decision not to repurchase this book.

Finally, I believe that this matter is of public interest, and I would like to publish our correspondence as a public letter.  I will, of course, redact your name and position if you wish.  Please let me know if you have any objections to this.

I await your response with anticipation.

Ngā mihi,

Laura López

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Laurinda Thomas 

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021, 08:49

Subject: RE: Irreversible Damage - library decline to purchase

Kia ora Laura,

We understand that you are unhappy with the decision that was made not to purchase Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier for the collection at Wellington City Libraries.

As outlined in our previous emails, we consider many factors when deciding whether to purchase a title.

We have many items in our collection on gender-related topics representing a range of viewpoints.  This forms part of a holistic approach to library collection management and means that while we do not purchase every title, we do aim to reflect the broad interests of the Wellington community.

As part of our regular ongoing reviews of libraries policies and practices, a review of our Collection Development Policy is already scheduled to take place in the coming months.

To the best of our knowledge, we have never purchased a copy of this book for our collection.** 

Regarding your request to make this chain of correspondence public, if you decide to do so, we ask for you to consider the Council Officers who make operational decisions in the course of their ordinary work, and how releasing this certain information may affect how they are treated publicly by other members of the public.  For this reason we ask you not to make public any staff names apart from myself as the Manager, Libraries and Community Spaces. You would still be able to refer to other staff in the correspondence by their job title.

Ngā mihi,

Laurinda Thomas

Laurinda Thomas (she/her)

Manager, Libraries and Community Spaces | Wellington City Council

Kaiwhakahaere, Whare Pukapuka me ngā Wāhi Pāpori | Te Kaunihera o Pōneke

W wcl.govt.nz |W Wellington.govt.nz |

---------

Postscript/Notes

* Since I wrote my original email, Kimball Atwood, editor emeritus of Science-Based Medicine, has written a public letter strongly disagreeing with the critical reviews of Irreversible Damage published on the Science Based Medicine website. Dr Atwood also states that he personally would have been comfortable publishing Harriet Hall’s positive review of Irreversible Damage on Science-Based Medicine. Noting that Dr Hall herself is an editor of Science-Based Medicine, this further reinforces my point that the thesis of Irreversible Damage is a matter of reasonable scientific dispute. Incidentally, Dr Hall has also published an updated version of her review on her personal website.

** I’m unsure how it was that I found Irreversible Damage on the shelves of Johnsonville library, if they’ve never purchased a copy. Perhaps it was ‘donated’ to the library by a generous person who left it on the shelves, and then it was later removed. Since I don’t remember checking whether it had official library markings, I can’t rule out this possibility, so I don’t wish to dispute the library’s claim that they’ve never purchased a copy. To me, it doesn’t make much difference either way.

Readers may also be interested in the BBC’s recent Nolan Investigates documentary podcast on the undue influence of activist groups within the British public sector, including their media regulator and the BBC itself. Like Wellington City Libraries, these organisations showed a striking lack of transparency in their responses to questions about how and why activist groups had exerted influence over them.