Collective article record

A Big Win in the USA: Stating the bleedin’ obvious

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-0557-6FF2 Permanent resolver

Source Summary

By Zoe Brain NCD 140.3, Transsexual Surgery Docket No. A-13-47 NCD Ruling No. 2 December 2, 2013 BOARD RULING THAT NCD RECORD IS NOT COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THE NCD The aggrieved party also argues that the NCD when issued was invalid and unsupported by the NCD record. The aggrieved party argues that the 1981 NCHCT report acknowledged the effectiveness of transsexual surgery in stating that “eight of the nine studies” that “represent the major clinical reports thus far published” between 1969 and 1980 on the outcome of the surgery “reported that most transsexuals show improved adjustment on a variety of criteria after sex reassignment surgery.”7 NCD Record at 1718. The aggrieved party also argues that the ninth, unfavorable, study on which the NCHCT relied was “severely flawed and ideologically biased,” and criticizes two of the sources cited in the 1981 NCHT report as ideologically biased

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

“A Big Win in the USA: Stating the bleedin’ obvious” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to healthcare and medicine, while also engaging transgender identity and history. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

As a publication record from 2013 at Transadvocate.com, “A Big Win in the USA: Stating the bleedin’ obvious” provides dated evidence of how healthcare and medicine was being argued in relation to transgender identity and history. Comparing it with earlier and later records can reveal changes in vocabulary, evidence, and emphasis.

Policy significance

No dominant policy frame was detected in “A Big Win in the USA: Stating the bleedin’ obvious.” Its policy relevance, when present, is therefore likely indirect: the article’s treatment of healthcare and medicine 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
Healthcare and medicineTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
100%
2
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
60%
3
Science, evidence, and expertiseTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
50%

Academic framing

1
Clinical and medical 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 “Healthcare and medicine” appears across the Collective corpus

This article was published during the theme’s highest-presence year in the registered corpus (2013).

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

3 2005

3 2006

23 2007

16 2008

6 2009

4 2010

36 2011

52 2012

55 2013

28 2014

10 2015

8 2016

18 2017

17 2018

3 2019

1 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 31, 2026

Scholarly indexesChecked · August 31, 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

Zoe

8 publications · 9 inbound sources/citations