Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.

How is this a problem? Do we live in a free society or not?

Can we raise the standard of criticism in a community dedicated to science to scientific integrity & facts rather than throwing mud? These objections look like the latter & that wikipedia article isn’t panning out your claims.

A transgender woman whom he described in the book filed a complaint with Northwestern University alleging that her many discussions with Bailey about his view of trans women and the book he was writing made her a non-consensual subject of IRB-regulated research by Bailey, and that during this time, she had consensual sex with him. Northwestern found no basis for the complaint.

Pretty frivolous, no, to claim a book qualifies as IRB-regulated research & to self-anoint oneself as subject of it? Worse to present the accusation as credible by filtering out all the relevant information. More omissions:

Alice Dreger, a bioethicist, published an account of the controversy in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. According to Dreger, the allegations of misconduct could accurately be described as “harassment”, and an “anti-Bailey campaign”. Dreger wrote that of the four women who complained to Northwestern, two acknowledged that they were aware they would be included in Bailey’s book in their letter to the university. The other two were not described in the book. Dreger also reported that while there was no definitive evidence to refute the allegation of sexual misconduct, datestamps on e-mails between Bailey and his ex-wife indicated that he was at her home looking after their two children at the time the misconduct was said to have occurred.

Regarding case evaluation letters

however, the department did not pursue those allegations, as he did not accept remuneration for the services and therefore did not violate the law.

Ironically, those accusations seem to mirror what you’re doing:

The book generated considerable controversy. A paper on the controversy was written by Alice Dreger, a bioethicist and historian, known for her support of intersex rights. Dreger included additional details in Galileo’s Middle Finger, an analysis of modern clashes between scientists and activists whose beliefs are challenged by them. In her documented account of the Bailey case, she concluded that a small group of self-styled activists tried to bury a politically challenging scientific theory by attacking Bailey: “These critics, rather than restrict themselves to the argument over the ideas, had charged Bailey with a whole host of serious crimes,” but that “what they claimed about Bailey simply wasn’t true.”

Misleading, antagonistic rhetoric of this sort is antithetical to the expectations of a community that purports to support science & is worthy of the strongest contempt. Not linking to the article doesn’t seem accidental. By attempting to mislead us, you’ve also wasted our time. You & your upvoters are an utter disappointment: we should expect a focus on science, not on throwing mud.