Collective article record

With “Defenders” Like This…

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-1194-B4F0 Permanent resolver

Source Summary

Alice Dreger Destroys Academic Freedom in Order to Save It It is an old adage that “crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.” This appears to be the thinking behind Alice Dreger’s latest attempt to stifle criticism of J. Michael Bailey’s pseudoscience in the name of “academic freedom”. Joelle Ruby Ryan recently issued a Call for Proposals for a proposed panel of the National Women’s Studies Association entitled The Bailey Brouhaha: Community Members Speak Out on Resisting Transphobia in Academia in Beyond. In it, she accurately summarises the history of the “controversy” around Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, as follows: While Bailey’s book The Man Who Would be Queen was released in 2003 to overwhelmingly negative reviews, the book caused a stir for its assertion that trans women can be split into two groupings: “homosexual transsexuals” and “autogynephilics.” Trans

The Source Summary reproduces the first 150 words of the source article unless a Collective editor has explicitly locked a replacement.

Read the original article View inbound sources

Interpretive context

Why this article may matter

Community significance

“With “Defenders” Like This…” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to science, evidence, and expertise, while also engaging history, archives, and memory. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

The article may have historical value because it explicitly interprets or preserves material concerning science, evidence, and expertise. Published in 2007 by Transadvocate.com, it can be read both for the history it describes and as evidence of how history, archives, and memory was framed at that moment.

Policy significance

No dominant policy frame was detected in “With “Defenders” Like This….” Its policy relevance, when present, is therefore likely indirect: the article’s treatment of science, evidence, and expertise may shape later arguments about institutions or public practice rather than proposing a specific rule.

Content analysis

Ranked themes and framings

Rank 1 is the dominant inferred theme or framing. Parent labels identify broader theme families; the relationship key beneath the diagram explains the line styles used for hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes.

Themes

1
Science, evidence, and expertiseTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
100%
2
History, archives, and memoryTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
77%
3
Community and organizingTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
26%
4
Violence, safety, and dehumanizationTheme family: Power, ideology, and social conflict
16%

Academic framing

1
Historical analysis
100%

Editorial function

Source topics

Relationship key

Overlapping themes
Separate but related themes

The diagram distinguishes hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes inferred within this article. It does not assert that all themes are mutually exclusive.

These classifications are inferred from article text and source metadata and remain directly editable. Relationship labels express corpus-analysis judgments, not immutable facts.

Granular comparative context

How “Science, evidence, and expertise” appears across the Collective corpus

This article appeared 5 year(s) before the theme reached its highest annual presence in the registered corpus in 2012.

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

1 2005

2 2006

19 2007

7 2008

3 2009

2 2010

21 2011

46 2012

43 2013

21 2014

12 2015

3 2016

20 2017

11 2018

5 2019

3 2020

1 2022

1 2024

1 2025

Presence by member publication

Frequently co-occurring concepts

Academic framings in this topic

Policy framings in this topic

Values measure relative presence in the registered Collective corpus, not public search interest or public opinion.

Inbound-link and citation evidence

Documented circulation and reception

No broad reception evidence has been documented yet; this may reflect unconfigured or incomplete indexes rather than an absence of circulation. These observations describe circulation and reuse; they do not assign cultural worth or evaluate the communities, arguments, or people discussed.

0distinct source records documented

0distinct referring domains

0best available scholarly cited-by count

0books or volumes documented

0references retained by the source publication

—observed years in dated evidence

Evidence by channel

Independent counts; bars are not additive

No channel totals are available yet.

Coverage of the evidence search

Shows what has actually been checked

Publisher-held referencesChecked · August 24, 2026

Scholarly indexesChecked · August 24, 2026

Book and volume searchNotchecked

Public-web searchNotconfigured

Collective corpus linksIndexed · August 31, 2026

Review scholarly results Review book results Review public-web results

No individual references have been stored yet. This can mean that source-held pingbacks have not been imported, provider access is not configured, or available indexes do not expose this work in a machine-readable form.

Counts describe documented circulation and reception in the sources currently available to the Collective. They are not a score of quality, merit, popularity, or social value, and provider totals can overlap.

Article authors

Author profiles and related researchers

Marti Abernathey

369 publications · 249 inbound sources/citations