ARTICLE

Not Just Social Media - The Woke Mob Wants To Censor The Book Industry

News Image By Jonathon Van Maren/Bridgehead.ca July 21, 2021
Share this article:

As I've noted in this space before, Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is one of the most important books of our time. It is one of the first in-depth, carefully researched pieces of journalism exposing a large-scale social experiment involving minors, which is why The Economist called it "one of our best books of the year" -- and also why trans activists have been doing everything they can to get it banned.

Activists have been petitioning libraries to have it removed from shelves and are particularly incensed by the fact that there appears to be long waiting lists for it. Target was pressured into pulling it from their shelves, and then reversed the decision after a backlash. 

Amazon blocked ads for the book, but ultimately refused to remove it, infuriating woke employees. Two employees resigned in recent weeks to protest the decision, presumably hoping this move would ramp up the pressure.


But it is indicative of how threatening trans activists believe Shrier's book to be to their cause, that the controversy surrounding it simply refuses to die. After the American Booksellers Association (ABA) included Irreversible Damage in promo material to their members this month, trans activists responded with fierce denunciations. In response they received a grovelling -- and sinister -- apology, which the ABA released to Twitter:

An anti-trans book was included in our July mailing to members. This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA's ends policies, values, and everything we believe and support. It is inexcusable.

We apologize to our trans members and to the trans community for this terrible incident and the pain we caused them. We also apologize to the LGBTQIA+ community at large, and to our bookselling community.

Apologies are not enough. We've begun addressing this today and are committed to engaging in the critical dialogue needed to inform concrete steps to address the harm we caused. Those steps will be shared in the next three weeks.


Pay attention to the language that is being used here, as this is the rhetoric that leads to book-banning (if not book-burning.) Promotion of a book on a current issue favorably reviewed by many prominent publications was referred to as a "violent incident."

The reason this is being referred to as "violence" is that it ups the ante with regard to what can be considered a proportionate response. Violence can be met with force -- censorship, banning, re-education. If words are violence and silence is violence, then our only choice is to parrot the "LGBTQIA+" agenda.

That is not an accident.

The apologies to the entire "community at large" for this "terrible incident" replete with genuine reparations -- I'm sure we'll see commitments to better censorship in the future -- for the "genuine harm," is indicative of a radicalism that brooks absolutely no dissent. As far as trans activists are concerned, there is no debate about whether or not children can get sex changes -- and to suggest that there is constitutes real violence constituting "genuine harm."

"Shut up," they explained. "Your words kill trans people, and you need to be dealt with."


This morbid blackmail is incredibly effective, as the ABA's apologies indicates. Fortunately, plenty of liberals are concerned by this. Very few activists did more to normalize the redefinition of marriage than Andrew Sullivan, but who took to Twitter to condemn ABA's statement: "A *booksellers* association calls mailing a flier of a book critical of some parts of critical gender theory a 'serious, violent incident.' *Violent.* This is how deep the illiberalism now runs." He then urged his followers (over 224,000 of them) to buy Shrier's book.

This sort of pushback is essential. Sane voices need to point out that debate is not violence, and that disagreeing with people does not cause "genuine harm." 

Refusing to play along with someone's ideology is not "erasing" them, it is differing with them. If we don't get that right, our free society is in imminent danger of suicide.

Originally published at The Bridgehead - reposted with permission.




Other News

January 24, 2026Police Ban 'Walk With Jesus' March In East London Over Fears Of Muslim Backlash

A planned "Walk With Jesus" march has been banned, not because it is illegal or violent, but because authorities fear it might offend othe...

January 24, 2026Why the Auto 'Kill Switch' Vote Should Alarm Every American

A car that can decide--based on opaque algorithms and federal standards--that you are "unfit" to drive opens the door for federal control ...

January 24, 2026Japan's Crash Is Our Canary In The Coal Mine

On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stock index crashed 870 points, the biggest drop since October. The mainstream media predicta...

January 24, 2026When the Church Becomes The Scapegoat For Transgender Tragedies

Joshua Link was employed as a custodian at St. John's Lutheran Church in Granite City. Church leadership reportedly told Link he could not...

January 22, 2026Are Americans Being Radicalized Online And Converting To Islam?

Radicalization increasingly requires no physical community, no visit to a mosque, no face-to-face recruitment. Screens alone suffice as on...

January 22, 2026Faith At The 50-Yard Line:The Quiet Revival In Football Your Not Supposed To See

As January football reaches its thunderous crescendo, the calendar is packed with some of the most watched and emotionally charged games o...

January 22, 2026The Architecture Of Obsession: How Media Coverage Warps Israel's Reality

This is how media distortion always works--not by inventing the facts but by shrinking and enlarging them selectively. A small story is ma...

Get Breaking News