Documents Reveal ADF Requested Anti-Trans Research From American College of Pediatricians
Documents left public on a Google Drive by anti-LGBTQ+ hate group American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), first reported by WIRED, reveal nearly a decade of coordination between ACPeds and another hate group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), to shore up anti-trans policy efforts and legal arguments with bespoke research.
Between Sept. 30 and Dec. 1, 2014, ADF sent letters to school boards in Minnesota, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin warning that they could be open to litigation for policies allowing transgender students to use appropriate facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms. On Dec. 5, 2014, ADF sent an email with a similar message to school superintendents across the U.S. The letters and emails were signed by Jeremy D. Tedesco, then senior counsel at ADF, now responsible for âefforts to combat corporate cancel culture.â
In a November 2014 blog post decrying a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance in Houston, Texas, then-ADF president Alan Sears highlighted the letters and ADFâs campaign against LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination protections. Sears also repeated an anti-LGBTQ+ trope claiming that nondiscrimination protections put children at risk and the âsafety implicationsâ of LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws âare so obvious as to hardly need elaboration.â
The only problem for Sears and Tedesco was a lack of evidence to support their claims; and, to make the claims stick, someone needed to elaborate. A new trove of from the American College of Pediatricians suggests ADF turned to the group known to traffic in anti-LGBTQ+ âjunk scienceâ to âsubstantiateâ many of its anti-LGBTQ+ talking points and provide medical justification for interpreting Title IX to exclude gender-identity protections. Together, the documents offer insight into how the groups manufactured legislative, legal and public relations challenges to medical science and public policy throughout the 2010s that have resulted in a of abortion rights and nearly unprecedented on bodily autonomy in the U.S.
ACPeds did not respond to a emailed request for comment on Hatewatchâs findings.
ACPeds and the anti-LGBTQ+ hate movement
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. Restricting the interpretation of âsex-based discriminationâ to apply only to straight, cisgender students has been one of the anti-LGBTQ+ movementâs longstanding goals. As trans visibility has increased, hate groups have argued, without evidence, that trans people pose a threat to women and girls, and that trans-inclusive nondiscrimination protections under Title IX jeopardize the safety of cisgender girls in particular.
Before he sent the letters, Tedesco seemed to recognize the lack of scientific evidence supporting ADFâs arguments against LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws, according to documents Hatewatch reviewed. Metadata associated with one document, a copy of an email titled âTransgender Research Requests,â suggests the file originated with âJTEDESCOâ at âADFâ on Aug. 11, 2014.
The message is addressed to Dr. Michelle Cretella, ACPedsâ executive director until 2021, and two others. It appears to be a follow-up to a previous call between Tedesco and the email recipients. The email asks for ACPeds to provide ADF with âwhite papersâ on five topics related to LGBTQ+ children and healthcare. White papers are research reports that convey subject matter expertise, but are also used as by corporations. The document from ADF to ACPeds even instructs the junk science organization on specifics, citing a 2013 Heritage Foundation article by Ryan Anderson arguing against same-sex marriage as an example of the âtype of paper we have in mind.â
ACPeds has a reputation within the anti-LGBTQ+ movement as an organization that attempts to obscure its anti-LGBTQ+ ideology and its connection to the religious right using medical pseudoscience. ACPeds was founded in 2002 after about 60 members broke away from the 60,000+ member medical association the American Academy of Pediatrics over its support for adoption by same-sex couples. ACPeds is now led by Jill Simons and reports more than 600 members, although the group allows members who are not physicians.
The group claims to be above the influence of âthe politically driven pronouncements of the day,â but the circumstances of ACPedsâ founding and its entrenchment within anti-LGBTQ+ policy networks make clear its primary purpose â to restrict LGBTQ+ rights. For example, an earlier document leak in 2023 that exposed emails between South Dakota, Idaho and Florida lawmakers and a network of anti-LGBTQ+ activists showed the influence of the groupâs former president Dr. Quentin Van Meter, Cretella and the co-chair of ACPedsâ Committee on Adolescent Sexuality, Dr. Andre Van Mol, on the and adoption of legislation banning gender-affirming healthcare across the country between 2018 and 2020.
A recent report by Kit OâConnell and Steven Monacelli at the Texas Observer details ACPedsâ admiration for conservative megadonor âs successful campaign to shut down the Gender Education and Care, Interdisciplinary Support (GENECIS) program at Childrenâs Medical Center Dallas in late 2021 because the hospital provides gender-affirming care.
The new documents seem to confirm the national reach of ACPeds and its focus on restricting LGBTQ+ rights. In a Jan. 21, 2020, board conference call, the group discussed so-called âVulnerable Child Protection Actsâ that ban gender-affirming healthcare for young people, noting the laws were âdrafted by ADF [Alliance Defending Freedom]/LC [Liberty Counsel] & ACPedsâ and âare being introduced around the country.â The minutes indicate that to that point, âACPeds members have been recruited to testify on behalf of these bills in GA, AL, KY and OH.â
The trove of internal documents also shows the groupâs leadership has, for years, disregarded questions about its and even Cretellaâs own qualifications for treating transgender people, in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ advocacy. In an email from Cretella dated Aug. 28, 2017, the former executive director says, âIn the past Iâve been told by lawyers on our side that I do not qualify as an expert witness because I am not an academic and do not have experience caring for children with gender identity disorder.â The same year, Cretella authored dozens of letters to elected officials opposing gender-affirming healthcare and LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination policies.
In 2020, then-ACPeds president Quentin Van Meter was ââ on hormone treatment in a Texas court, but before state lawmakers advocating against gender-affirming healthcare. ACPeds also regularly issues policy statements, amicus curiae (âfriend of the courtâ) briefs, domestically and internationally, and promotes appearances by its leadership in conservative media, disguising itself as a medical authority while spreading anti-LGBTQ+ âjunk science.â
The request from ADF: Help undermine LGBTQ+ protections in Title IX
In 2017, Hatewatch reported on ADFâs âstableâ of purported âexpertâ witnesses, including Dr. Paul Hruz and Dr. Allan Josephson, who were called to help defend discrimination against transgender students. Although both hold medical degrees, Hruz and Josephson were at odds with their professional organizationsâ official positions on gender-affirming care and, like Cretella, reported never treating patients with gender dysphoria. What the witnesses held in common were anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs and a relationship to ADF, who sponsored a conference where the two met.
The new documents suggest that ADFâs recruitment of dubious âexpertsâ began earlier than previously reported and, to an extent, anticipated the fight to interpret Title IX to include protections for transgender students. The documents also show that ACPeds appears to have recognized the request and eventually responded with a public statement and letter-writing campaign of its own, following ADFâs lead on messaging. Importantly, ACPeds purportedly offered a medical justification for an exclusionary interpretation of Title IX in accordance with ADFâs request.
In the 2014 âTransgender Research Requestâ message, ADF asks ACPeds for several policy statements that âsubstantiateâ the claim that âpsychological harmâ especially âbefall[s] girls/womenâ when their âprivacyâ is âinvaded by males,â and âsubstantiateâ the idea that being transgender is a âphaseâ and that âinterpreting this common stage as gender identity confusion warrants treating a child as the opposite sex ⌠and pursuing more drastic measures like ⌠genital change surgery.â
The request is consistent with both ADFâs anti-trans and its legal needs. In addition to brought by some against a trans-inclusive nondiscrimination law in Houston, Texas, ADF was leading the charge against gender-inclusive school nondiscrimination policies, helping challenge one as early . ADF attorneys would go on to testify and file amicus briefs, and ADF would file its own cases against LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws in public school districts 2015-17. ADF would also author model legislation banning trans students from school sports in of states.
Reflecting this context and ADFâs impending letters to school districts warning of potential litigation, the research requests asks if there is âany way to get the papers completed ⌠by mid-Novemberâ [2014], but it would be âeven betterâ if they could be done earlier.
The request also foreshadowed the direction of ADFâs legislative and legal strategy when it asked for policy statements to âsubstantiateâ the claim that it is âinappropriateâ and âcould have harmsâ to treat gender dysphoria in children with affirmation, and caregivers should instead ignore it as âa phase.â A document from a professional organization that reaches these conclusions, the request suggests, would help ADF âmake the point that interpreting Title IX to include protections for âgender identityâ [sic] will harm girls.â
Throughout 2015 and 2016, ADF to send letters to and testify before local school districts warning âno courtâ had interpreted Title IX to include gender identity, and that school districts with nondiscrimination policies that included gender identity could open themselves to litigation. The group also took on clients to challenge local school districtsâ adoption of trans-inclusive policies and challenged the Obama administrationâs guidance for schools that included gender-identity protections under Title IX after it was in May 2016.
A review of ACPeds executive committee meeting minutes shows that at the fall 2014 board meeting, held Oct. 3-4 in Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. Cretella was assigned an âaction itemâ to âcooperate with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on joint statement concerning transgender use of restrooms in schools.â A statement titled âSex-Segregated Bathroom and Locker Room Access is Best for Childrenâ eventually appeared on ACPedsâ website in the spring of 2016. In the short statement, however, ACPeds offered no medical evidence for why transgender people should be barred from using bathrooms that match their gender identity.
At the February 2016 board meeting in Houston, Texas, the minutes note the organization sent letters and a fact sheet about gender dysphoria to state legislatures, school districts and âseveral grassroots organizationsâ in Alabama, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Virginia.
In a publicly available version of a letter titled âA Medical Response to DOE & DOJ Guidance for Schoolsâ and dated after the Obama administration issued Title IX guidance, Cretella cites Dr. Kenneth Zucker and sexologist J. Michael Bailey to argue that neither gender-affirming care nor claiming âgender identity is the equivalent of sex as codified in Title IXâ have any âbasis in science.â âHuman sexuality is binary by design,â the letter claims, while âall medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm ⌠are rightly recognized as disorders of human design.â Gender identity, ACPeds insists, does not âcomprise a third sexâ and is, therefore, not protected under Title IX.
One case, known as Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, illustrates how ADFâs request for research and ACPedsâ production of that research are packaged as part of ADFâs legal campaign against LGBTQ+ rights. The Boyertown case began in August 2016, when âJoel Doeâ started high school in the Boyertown, Pennsylvania, school district. Because the district previously adopted a ânarrowâ policy â consistent with from the American Academy of Pediatrics â to allow trans students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, ADF and the Independence Law Center filed suit on behalf of Doe to block the policy.
Among other claims, ADFâs suit argued that Title IX âexplicitly emphasizes the binary view of sex, not âgender identity,â [sic] which is nonbinaryâ to support its assertion that Title IX should not be interpreted to protect trans students. ADF lost the case, although the group appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review a lower court ruling, leaving the policy in place.
As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, ACPeds leaders including Van Meter and Van Mol filed an amicus brief in support of Doe and ADFâs legal theory. The brief cites other ACPeds thought leaders including Cretella and Zucker and claims âgender affirming policies generally harm, rather than help, gender dysphoric children.â The brief repeats characterizations from ADFâs 2014 request by equating transgender identity to âa bit of play-acting,â claiming that transgender people are âimpersonatingâ the opposite sex, and insinuating that nondiscrimination policies will result in a rash of transgender kids pursuing âdrastic medical coursesâ like âsurgical interventions.â
Van Meter and Van Molâs 2018 amicus brief was attorney Parker Douglas, who worked with ADF in 2018 on the case, which sought to end employment discrimination protections for transgender people. Other show Douglas was later employed directly by ADF. Minutes from the ACPeds April 2019 board meeting confirm the brief, and a separate brief in the case of Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County (Florida), were filed as part of ADFâs and ACPedsâ campaign âagainst pro-transgender bathroom, locker room, and sports policy.â
Activism without oversight? ACPeds policy statements and amicus briefs
Not long after ACPeds issued its public affirmation of âsex-segregated bathrooms,â in August 2016, the group issued a policy statement titled âGender Dysphoria in Childrenâ and an accompanying blog post claiming that âgender ideology harms children.â Neither the policy statement nor the blog post mention Title IX. However, they use language about binary gender identity and threats of surgical escalation that is similar to ACPedsâ previous school board letter.
Policy statements and amicus briefs are major tools used by ACPeds in their campaign to co-op the language of science to promote anti-LGBTQ+ ideology. On its website, ACPeds currently lists 66 policy statements and nearly three dozen amicus curiae briefs it filed, some with the help of the anti-LGBTQ+ groups Liberty Counsel and ADF, in cases opposing same-sex adoption and marriage, a case brought by ADF that argues professors have a constitutional right to misgender students, and other cases opposing abortion and nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students in public schools.
ACPeds compares its practice of producing policy statements to the American Academy of Pediatrics, saying both groups âemploy similar first steps in producing a policy.â Although the American Academy of Pediatrics notes their policy statements are , including an evidentiary review and submission to multiple groups of peer reviewers before being weighed by the groupâs board, ACPedsâ process includes only evaluation by a âsmall committeeâ known internally as the Scientific Policy Committee. Then, provided three-quarters of the ACPeds âexecutive committeeâ supports a statement, it is âpassed and published.â
Whereas the groupâs policy statements receive at least a nominal committee review, journalists Madison Pauly and Emma Rindlisbacher previously that amicus briefs were typically the sole purview of the former executive director, Michelle Cretella. Others have reported that under scientific scrutiny, ACPedsâ amicus briefs have been for scientific findings and data to fit conservative, anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion narratives.
The documents reviewed by Hatewatch also suggest that ACPeds understood that ADF was willing to subsidize its anti-LGBTQ+ policy advocacy, giving ACPeds a potential financial motive for complying with ADFâs anti-trans research requests. Minutes from the spring 2019 board meeting and executive committee conference calls show Cretella met with a senior attorney at ADF to solicit a $15,000 grant for a âwhite paperâ that ârefutesâ the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care 7 â a document that provides best practices for treating trans and gender non-conforming patients. The minutes suggest that ACPeds knew the white paper could be used in future ADF litigation and that ADF was âwilling to fundâ the project.
ADF continues its efforts to challenge inclusive education practices as well as trans-inclusive school sports, gender-affirming healthcare, and abortion rights. ACPeds continues to help. In June 2019, the ACPeds executive board entertained a request for an amicus brief from ADF supporting the claim that âsex is innate and immutable.â The minutes show the request would overlap with a position paper, authored by Cretella and ACPedsâ current president Michael Artigues, titled âSex is a Biological Trait of Medical Significance.â In 2020, filed an amicus brief for ACPeds in an ADF case called Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State University , which discusses the importance of âsexâ to medical science.
Both Artiguesâ position paper and the brief use language directly from ADFâs request, as recounted in the 2019 conference call, to argue that unlike sex, gender identity is not âinnateâ and âimmutable.â In its brief, ACPeds argues a pseudoscientific case in support of ADFâs client by claiming gender identity is an ideological âflight from realityâ that âthreaten[s] the integrity of science and medicine.â ADF subsequently  the case.
Similarly, in 2021, ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of ACPeds against Xavier Becerra, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, using the same incendiary clams that gender affirmation will lead to âdrasticâ escalations in medical care that ADF first requested of ACPeds in 2014. Namely, the suit claims the departmentâs interpretation of nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act ârequire gender transition ⌠surgeries and drugs on demand, even for children, no matter a doctorâs medical judgment.â A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the case in November 2022. ADF filed a notice of appeal in January.
(Editor's note:Â An earlier version of this story misidentified the founder of ACPeds as Kenneth Zucker. The founder is Joseph Zanga. We regret the error.)
Photo illustration by °Ä˛ĘżŞ˝ą (L-R Alan Sears, Jeremy Tedesco and Michelle Cretella)
