Dreger is not exactly a neutral party in this. You can’t take her words as some sort of neutral account of what happened. If you don’t want trans people and specifically trans women to exist it’s very easy to use words like ‘trying to ruin’ to describe well-deserved criticism and rebuttal. That too, is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Much of the dreg published back then by Bailey, Blanchard, Raymond and others has long since been discredited by the scientific community and before you say anything: no, not because of ‘wokeism gone mad’.

One pillar of their research back then (and in part - to this day) was insisting trans women are men who suffer from a condition called autogynephilia (a fetish for seeing oneself as an attractive woman - the theory Dreger is referring to). And yes, a considerable amount of trans women met the standards he set for this condition. But it turns out, the percentage is even higher among cis (non-trans) women. 93% of them qualify. I guess the remaining 7% are the real women.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19591032/

If you are sincerely interested I recommend reading the works of Julia Serano. This piece about the book you mentioned is a great place to start: http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2015/04/alice-dreger-and-mak... If you’re just looking for ammunition to throw at trans people because you don’t like them existing, as very much seems to be the case with Alice Dreger, I can only hope you’ll find a more meaningful and positive way to spend your time.

Wasn't the 'Danny' bit in that book totally fabricated? And it's not as if Dreger herself doesn't have plenty of anti-trans stuff.

(Bailey's also an associate of Steve Sailer, which is reason enough to doubt his honesty)