From Policy to Precarity: Gender Apartheid and the Myth of American ‘Greatness’

By guest contributor Bhavya Kalra

What does it mean to “Make America Great Again” in a nation built on exclusion, segregation, and selective recognition of rights? With Donald Trump’s re-election, his administration is heralding a new wave of regression: stripping abortion rights and advancing identity erasure. What started as control over bodies has now become a war on existence itself. If America is to be “great,” the question remains: for whom, and at what cost?

For many transgender and non-binary individuals, existing has never been easy. Trump’s recent executive orders recognizing only two genders, male and female, aren’t just exclusionary; they are an outright erasure of millions who exist beyond this binary. These policies exacerbate systemic inequalities and set a dangerous precedent globally. And if history has taught us anything, it is that segregation never stops at identity; it seeps into healthcare, education, and economic participation.

Legislating Erasure: The Weaponization of Policy

In an article for The Guardian, Melody Schreiber states, “The orders were couched in terms of women’s safety and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies, but in fact, they work to undermine broad swathes of the American public: trans and intersex people, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, women, disabled people, and more.” Researchers receiving federal funding have reportedly been ordered to remove words such as ‘woman,’ ‘disability,’ and ‘LGBT’ from proposals and studies, a deliberate suppression of marginalized identities in academia and policy making. This attacks trans and non-binary individuals while weaponizing biological females under the guise of protection. The fear mongering about trans rights is not about protecting women’s spaces or maintaining fairness in sports, it is about punishing those who refuse to conform to the patriarchal order of the society.

The Impact on Healthcare: Denial of Life-Saving Information and Treatment

This policy shift has created an information vacuum for care providers and those in need. Schreiber also mentions that “nearly all information related to HIV for health providers and the public temporarily vanished in the purge.” We need to acknowledge that this is not an isolated oversight but is part of a broader strategy to suppress knowledge that supports marginalized communities. HIV disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly trans women of color, yet the erasure of HIV-related resources signals a deliberate neglect of their healthcare needs, further denying them the right to information about their health and well-being.

An executive order called  Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation has halted gender-affirming transition surgeries for individuals under nineteen, prohibiting the usage of puberty blockers, hormones and other surgical measures for those in need of gender affirming care. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this policy not only “undermines” the autonomy of young individuals seeking to align their physical selves with their gender identity but also disregards established medical guidelines that recognize the necessity of such treatments for the well-being of transgender youth.

This brings me back to the Sex vs Gender debate. The ‘reductionist’ view of gender disregards the profound insights of philosopher Judith Butler, who introduced the concept of “Gender Performativity.” Butler argues that gender is not an inherent trait but a series of actions and behaviors that society compels individuals to perform, creating the illusion of a stable identity. This performative nature of gender means that societal norms dictate how individuals express their identities, often enforcing conformity through rigid expectations.

For many cisgender people, their assigned sex aligns with gender performance, leading to self-acceptance. However, transgender and non-binary individuals experience a dissonance between their internal sense of self and the gendered behaviors imposed upon them.

According to an article on “Gender Dysphoria” by Mayo Clinic, this discordance can result in significant psychological distress, which is characterized by feelings of discomfort and distress due to a mismatch between one’s gender identity and assigned sex at birth. Now, consider the experience of an eleven-year-old child grappling with gender dysphoria. The denial of gender-affirming care, as seen in recent legislative actions, further compounds this distress, stripping away the support systems that are vital for the well-being of transgender youth.

The “Pro-Life” Movement’s Hypocrisy

‘Pro-life’ advocates claim to protect the sanctity of life. But whose lives are they actually protecting? Certainly not women, who have been stripped of the right to choose for themselves. Certainly not trans youth, whose access to life-saving healthcare is being stripped away. We’ve seen a relentless rollback of rights including trans rights, LGBTQ+ rights, initiatives aimed at the well-being of refugees and immigrants. The pattern is clear: this is not about protecting life. If it were, wouldn’t they also care about trans kids struggling with gender dysphoria? Wouldn’t they care about ensuring immigrant and refugee children have access to basic healthcare, shelter, and dignity? So, who are they really protecting? The ones who push these policies election after election, using human lives as bargaining chips to maintain their voter base? If they were truly pro-life, wouldn’t all lives matter to them, including the children gunned down in school shootings across the U.S.? In fact,  the number 1 cause of death  among kids in the US is gun violence. Women are forced to give birth only to lose children to gun violence. What is the pro-life movement at this point? Because it certainly isn’t about life. It is about control, power, and the enforcement of a rigid, oppressive ideology that serves only those already at the top.

Corporate Complicity: The Quiet Retreat from DEI

The corporate world, once eager to champion diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), is now retreating under legal and political pressure, leaving Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ communities to bear the brunt of its abandonment. Catherine Early and Terry Slavin talk about how companies like Amazon, Meta, and Walmart “have cut back on supplier diversity programs, funding, and hiring initiatives, disproportionately affecting Black female entrepreneurs and LGBTQ+ professionals.” This corporate abandonment is not a coincidence but complicity. Trans and non-binary individuals now find themselves excluded from not just healthcare and legal protections but also from economic participation. This is a deliberate effort to ensure that trans people remain in a constant state of legal, social, and economic precarity.

Conclusion

The reality is stark: “Making America Great Again” has never been about progress. It has always been about regression and about stripping away the hard-fought rights of the most vulnerable. It is not about restoring America’s greatness; it is about restoring America’s dominance: of men over women, of cisgender people over trans people, of whiteness over racial minorities, and the elite over the poor. True greatness is built on equity, justice, and the unwavering protection of human rights. America today stands at a crossroads: Will it choose exclusion or restore its promise of freedom and justice for all?

Now more than ever, humanitarians, activists, and youth must take charge. It is the youth who will inherit this nation, and it is up to them to decide whether they will accept an America built on exclusion or demand one that upholds dignity for all. We need voices that won’t be silenced and leaders who won’t let history repeat itself. We need people willing to fight, not just for trans and women’s rights, but for human rights.

About the Author:

Bhavya Kalra (She/Her/Elle) is a third-year undergraduate student at McGill University, majoring in International Development and Gender Studies. Her interests lie in human rights, global health equity, and immigrant and refugee advocacy. Bhavya has been involved with PINAY Quebec and McGill’s Youth Advisory Delegation as a gender and reproductive rights expert, working on advocacy, outreach, and grassroots organizing. During her internship with PINAY Quebec, she worked on media analysis of CANSEC 2024, focusing on how military trade shows are framed in public discourse, especially during globally volatile periods.

Currently, Bhavya is engaged in human rights advocacy, with a focus on creating a global support network for immigrant and refugee communities. She can be found on LinkedIn

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.