The Pseudoscience Network in Action: A Case Study of Virginia
In 2023, the Virginia House of Delegates adopted Sage鈥檚 Law. The law was drafted in part by the Virginia Family Foundation鈥檚 Founding Freedoms Law Center to out transgender students to their parents and bar schools from engaging in socially affirming practices without parental consent. As the House of Delegates considered the bill in January 2023, Julia Mason from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) testified in support of the measure citing the desistence myth and saying, 鈥渟ocial transition concretizes what could have been a transient [transgender] identity.鈥�[1]
Mason also quoted SEGM鈥檚 Michael Biggs, without noting their organizational connection, to claim 鈥渢here is no evidence that affirmation lowers the risk of suicide.鈥� When asked by a friendly lawmaker if the United States was undertaking any systematic reviews of the evidence for gender-affirming care, Mason noted changes in the U.K.鈥檚 use of the affirming care model, again without noting her own organization鈥檚 hand in sowing distrust in the model and its deep connections across the pond.
Mason鈥檚 testimony was sandwiched between comments from Erin Friday of Our Duty and Erin Brewer of Advocates Protecting Children, Mary McAlister of the Child and Parents Rights Campaign and detransition activist Abel Garcia. Friday鈥檚 parental perspective, recounting how she rejected her trans child, was complemented by Brewer鈥檚 testimony, which suggested that trans identity results from child sexual abuse and the testimony of Garcia, who suggested that schools in California were forcibly transitioning children over parental objections. Mary McAlister gave perspective on the breadth of the perceived threat. McAlister claimed that parents who want to reject their trans kids are calling her organization 鈥渆very day鈥� to request help with the 鈥渞ampant problem鈥� of schools affirming transgender kids.
At a sparsely attended press conference on Feb. 13, the Family Foundation of Virginia was joined by representatives of Moms for Liberty鈥檚 Loudoun County chapter to repeat many of the misleading claims made during the House hearing and rebut a press conference by Equality Virginia, the state鈥檚 人兽性交+ rights organization. At the press conference, Laura Hanford, a Federalist contributor and 鈥渁rchitect鈥� of Sage鈥檚 Law, used the questionable account of Missouri 鈥渨histleblower鈥� Jamie Reed (who is represented by Child and Parental Rights Campaign and works for Genspect) and the anti-人兽性交 campaign against the U.K.鈥檚 Tavistock Clinic to justify her law.[2]
The week before, on Feb. 9, 2023, Del. Dave LaRock, a major supporter of the legislation, appeared on Tony Perkins鈥� Washington Watch streaming program. Speaking to Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council, LaRock claimed that being 鈥�100% affirming of everything LGBT鈥� is sometimes harmful to children and 鈥渃ompletely deprive[s] parents of their opportunity to 鈥� put things [gender- affirming care] on hold鈥� if they do not want to support their transgender child.[3]
LaRock鈥檚 district includes portions of Loudoun County, Virginia, a community just west of Washington, D.C., that has been a testing ground of sorts for the renewed 鈥減arents鈥� rights鈥� movement, with a focus on censoring 人兽性交+ and anti-racist topics in public education. The intense political conflict in the area has also pushed the bounds on the acceptability of violence to achieve political ends and witnessed the use of social media to fuel right-wing mobilizations against 人兽性交+-inclusive and anti-racist education.[4]
In 2021, the Alliance Defending Freedom sued the local school board to overturn a district policy requiring teachers to use pronouns requested by students and parents of trans and nonbinary kids. The lawsuit argued that referring to a trans student by a pronoun that does not 鈥渕atch鈥� the student鈥檚 real or perceived sex would violate the teacher鈥檚 conservative Christian beliefs about creationism and the 鈥渋mmutability鈥� and 鈥渃omplementarity鈥� of sex and 鈥渉arm鈥� the child because, they argue, affirming their trans or nonbinary identity is 鈥渦ntrue.鈥�[5] The same year, ADF gave the Family Foundation of Virginia an $84,000 grant for work related to the 鈥渟anctity of life.鈥� Two years prior, ADF gave the Family Foundation $156,000 for work related to 鈥渞eligious liberty.鈥�
In 2022, Moms for Liberty in Loudoun County protested anti-racist and 人兽性交 inclusive education policies at the local school board. The protests featured the slogan 鈥渟top grooming our kids,鈥�[6] an anti-人兽性交 phrase championed by right-wing 鈥渋ntellectuals,鈥� notable among them Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute and early advisory board member of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, who also helped inject the 鈥減arents鈥� rights鈥� and anti-inclusive education framing into the state鈥檚 governor鈥檚 race in 2021.[7]
At FRC Action鈥檚 2023 Pray Vote Stand summit, held Sept. 15-16 in Washington, D.C., Todd Gathje of the VFF addressed a crowd of conservative Christian activists interested in repeating his success in Virginia.[8] "Parents鈥� rights trump Trump鈥� according to polling conducted by VFF, Gathje said. Noting that the campaign to ban trans athletes, largely led by ADF,[9] helped 鈥渢urn the public鈥� against trans rights, Gathje then expressed enthusiasm that the parental rights framework offered a path to political victory for the far right because it built on the success of that anti-trans narrative and resonated even in the 鈥減urple state鈥� of Virginia. Importantly, Gathje also claimed that the VFF helped coordinate the 2023 voting schedule in the House of Delegates to ensure their preferred 鈥渆xperts鈥� could testify in favor of Sage鈥檚 Law.
Similar scenes have played out across the country for the past two years, resulting in 23 state bans on gender-affirming health care for trans youth, 23 bans on trans kids playing school sports, six state laws restricting drag performances, five state laws forcing the outing of transgender youth in schools (Virginia鈥檚 parental notification law did not pass in 2023), and the introduction of hundreds of bills targeting 人兽性交+ rights.[10]
That anti-人兽性交 medical 鈥渆xperts鈥� who crisscross the country are often employed or coordinated by anti-人兽性交 groups and politicians to defend anti-人兽性交 laws is largely known.[11] What is less known is the extent of the network that has developed since 2015 to manufacture scientific controversy and public policy targeting 人兽性交+ people. This case study is one example. Chapter 5 of the 人兽性交鈥檚 CAPTAIN report provides further evidence of the organizations and division of labor within the network.
Read more: Combating Anti-人兽性交+ Pseudoscience Through Accessible Informative Narratives
[4] ; .
[5] .
[6] .
[7] . . .
[8] See:
[10] For details on legislation see: Senate Judiciary Hearing: . House Judiciary Hearing: . In Ohio: . In Tennessee: . In Louisiana, see: Gene Mills鈥� president of Louisiana Family Alliance said, 鈥� We had allied attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom, Matt shore, we have physicians from Louisiana, we had moms whose children had experience transition, and we had D transitioners. And I gotta tell you, the case was compelling. When I say this is the closest thing to an impeccable hearing I've ever attended. In the 40 years or so that I've been doing this is phenomenally correct.鈥�
[11] .
