This article is taken from the August-September 2024 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.

---

Sound the klaxon, another woman has lost her job thanks to the gender wars. But in a major twist, the casualty this time was not someone from the gender-critical camp. Tilly Fitzgerald, an influencer and senior bookseller at Waterstones, was sacked by the bookshop because of a vicious tweet she directed at the bestselling author Christina Dalcher.

Dalcher had, in civil terms, defended SEEN In Publishing (a new network for those in the publishing world who “recognise the material reality of sex, and support freedom of expression”) against one of many hostile reactions from other publishing figures. Fitzgerald weighed in, assuring Dalcher: “Ooh, I’ll enjoy tearing up your books and popping them in the bin today. Thanks for the heads up.”

In response, Dalcher quoted Fitzgerald’s tweet to highlight the Fahrenheit 451 approach that such bookselling bloggers take towards those in publishing who refuse to conform to gender woo-woo. Fitzgerald’s account was her professional one as well as personal, and Waterstones parted company with her.

This has come as a welcome surprise for many women (and men) scarred by mistreatment and ostracism by gender identitarians in their professional life — especially the arts where connections and reputation are everything.

Simultaneously, it has come as a horrible shock for radical progressives and their #BeKind allies, who’ve never previously had to entertain the idea that they might face consequences for their political opinions bringing their workplace into disrepute.

Amongst gender ideology’s dissidents, there is some forgivable schadenfreude as well as disgust at the hypocrisy of those amongst Fitzgerald’s defenders, who have suddenly developed an interest in freedom of speech in publishing.

More than 500 authors and publishing employees have signed an open letter urging Waterstones to reinstate Fitzgerald. One of the more famous signatories is Chocolat author Joanne Harris, who, whilst head of the Society of Authors, was content to let crickets chirp whilst women in her industry were hounded, slandered and discriminated against.

Nonetheless, my instinctive reaction to “Tillygate” was uneasiness at someone being fired over a tweet, regardless of her nastiness or unprofessionalism. The problem with Fitzgerald’s phrasing is that it’s unclear whether she meant she intended to destroy her apparent personal collection of Dalcher’s books, or whether she was threatening to take a shredder to company stock.

She took to social media with a hoarse-voiced, whimpering video

It was a bad look for a Waterstones employee either way, but the ambiguity could set a discomfiting precedent for a sacking.

Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake, though, and in Fitzgerald’s case there wasn’t even time to draw breath. She took to social media with a hoarse-voiced, whimpering video that made the viral video of the Starbucks worker who filmed themselves snivelling that they had too many customers look like a portrait of dignity.

In it, Fitzgerald made unevidenced claims against Dalcher and slagged off Waterstones as having “no morals”, a curious move if you’re seeking to be rehired by the company. In a later Instagram video, she openly begged listeners not to buy any of Dalcher’s books. On this basis, and the fact that Waterstones has issued a statement affirming that its social media policy was violated, scepticism may shift towards ambivalence.

The attitude and entitlement Fitzgerald exhibits is typical in the world of print media and the arts. As someone with novelist aspirations who completed her writing degree in 2020 — the year progressive hysteria ingrained itself — I could have substituted Tilly Fitzgerald for the students who intimidated me into deleting my old social media profiles.

My crime? Being “caught” agreeing that the abuse received by J.K. Rowling was reprehensible. The pronouns and hair colour may be different, but the righteousness, narcissism and entitlement (Fitzgerald sobbed about how amazing she was at her job) was the same — the sheer cry-bully meangirlism.

Publishing is one of the worst sectors for political conformism and related bullying, which cannot be separated from the fact that it is one of the most hyper-feminised industries, dominated by women at all levels including the top. Glass ceiling victories aside, there is something about the feigned egalitarianism of female competitiveness that translates depressingly well to modern publishing culture.

The key to successful sabotage and status-gain is, as any wily mean girl knows, covertness. Agents and publishers are snowed under with proposals and pitches. It’s a cut-throat, jealous and business-led world that operates behind a facade of hope, creativity and reward for perseverance. Which is why publishing was fated to become enmeshed in the DEI paradox, where diversity, equity and inclusion are pursued through conformity, discrimination and exclusion.

Bookstagram, the unofficial Instagram network for book reviewers who have significant influence, and home to the likes of Tilly Fitzgerald, is the epitome of this two-facedness. The promotional pictures of prettily arranged paperbacks have a somewhat Dolores Umbridge tweeness. But featured titles tend to look rather similar and certain names, including bestsellers, are, strangely, omitted.

I recently voiced my support online for SEEN In Publishing, only to have a well-followed Bookstagrammer openly reply minutes later: “We will ensure no one reads your novel. Have fun standing with SEEN.” For a dark laugh, I had a glance at her Instagram: “Hello lovelies!” post after post chirruped, accompanied by pastel displays of books and hot drinks.

In the aftermath of Tillygate, I’ve seen a number of gender-critical people in the arts calling for publishing houses and other institutions to train staff in the basics of the Equality Act and why it’s illegal to discriminate against people who hold that biological sex is immutable.

Whilst this is a good starting point to prevent more messy dismissals, no training can stop bookshop assistants who hide works of which they don’t approve, or prevent literary agents from discarding queries from writers who have “problematic” social media followers. It can’t prevent messages to book reviewers urging them to shun those who gave a glowing review to the latest Robert Galbraith novel.

The tide will not change with the sporadic firing of Tilly Fitzgerald types, which will only feed the progressive authoritarians’ sense of martyrdom. A more effective solution would be to change hiring practices. Instead of hyping up their DEI credentials, booksellers and publishers should make it clear in job descriptions that their corporate commitment is to artistic freedom of expression and the right to offend. Those who would feel “unsafe” in such an environment need not apply.

However, this is very difficult in an industry infected by an ideological system that is ringfenced against dissent, that weeds out heretics and that effectively prevents people who could implement such change from ever getting power.

To that end, free-thinking people in pursuit of a literary career might do as I did and self-exile from the captured mainstream industry. Once enough of us do so, we can build our own networks, connections and define a new creative ethos.

Indeed, the existence of SEEN In Publishing indicates plenty of us are already getting stuck into the project and our community will grow and diversify in its proper sense. Hopefully within the next few years, we’ll see the emergence of a literary industry that has some balls.