logo
Trans people are less than 1% of the population. Trump made them a political lightning rod

Trans people are less than 1% of the population. Trump made them a political lightning rod

Independent30-03-2025

Donald Trump's renewed focus on transgender issues has reignited a contentious debate, raising questions about civil rights and political strategy. During his campaign, Trump leveraged transgender access to sports and bathrooms to galvanize conservative support. Now, back in office, he's doubled down, removing references to transgender individuals from government websites and passports, and attempting to reinstate a ban on their military service.
This focus on a minority group—transgender people constitute less than 1% of the US population—highlights a significant cultural divide. Transgender individuals and their advocates view these actions as an assault on civil rights. This difference in perspective has transformed the issue into a key piece on Trump's political chessboard.
Trump's actions have faced legal challenges, with several judges ruling against his administration's policies. These rulings underscore the ongoing legal battle over transgender rights and the clash between differing interpretations of equality and inclusion.
The president's spotlight is giving Monday's Transgender Day of Visibility a different tenor this year.
'What he wants is to scare us into being invisible again,' said Rachel Crandall Crocker, the executive director of Transgender Michigan who organized the first Day of Visibility 16 years ago. 'We have to show him we won't go back.'
So why has this small population found itself with such an outsized role in American politics?
Trump's actions reflect a constellation of beliefs that transgender people are dangerous, are men trying to get access to women's spaces or are pushed into gender changes that they will later regret.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and other major medical groups have said that gender-affirming treatments can be medically necessary and are supported by evidence.
Zein Murib, an associate professor of political science and women's, gender and sexuality studies at Fordham University, said there has been a decades-old effort 'to reinstate Christian nationalist principles as the law of the land' that increased its focus on transgender people after a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide. It took a few years, but some of the positions gained traction.
One factor: Proponents of the restrictions lean into broader questions of fairness and safety, which draw more public attention.
Sports bans and bathroom laws are linked to protecting spaces for women and girls, even as studies have found transgender women are far more likely to be victims of violence. Efforts to bar schools from encouraging gender transition are connected to protecting parental rights. And bans on gender-affirming care rely partly on the idea that people might later regret it, though studies have found that to be rare.
Since 2020, about half the states passed laws barring transgender people from sports competitions aligning with their gender and have banned or restricted gender-affirming medical care for minors. At least 14 have adopted laws restricting which bathrooms transgender people can use in certain buildings.
In February, Iowa became the first state to remove protections for transgender people from civil rights law.
It's not just political gamesmanship. 'I think that whether or not that's a politically viable strategy is second to the immediate impact that that is going to have on trans people," Fordham's Murib said.
More than half of voters in the 2024 election — 55% — said support for transgender rights in the United States has gone too far, according to AP VoteCast. About 2 in 10 said the level of support has been about right, and a similar share said support hasn't gone far enough.
Nevertheless, AP VoteCast also found voters were split on laws banning gender-affirming medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or hormone therapy, for minors. Just over half were opposed to these laws, while just under half were in favor.
Trump voters were overwhelmingly likely to say support for transgender rights has gone too far, while Kamala Harris' voters were more divided. About 4 in 10 Harris voters said support for transgender rights has not gone far enough, while 36% said it's been about right and about one-quarter said it's gone too far.
A survey this year from the Pew Research Center found Americans, including Democrats, have become more slightly more supportive of requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex at birth and more supportive on bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors since 2022. Most Democrats still oppose those kinds of measures, though.
Leor Sapir, a fellow at Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank, says Trump's and Republicans ' positions have given them a political edge.
'They are putting their opponents, their Democratic opponents, in a very unfavorable position by having to decide between catering to their progressive, activist base or their median voter,' he said.
Not everyone agrees.
'People across the political spectrum agree that in fact, the major crises and major problems facing the United States right now is not the existence and civic participation of trans people,' said Olivia Hunt, director of federal policy for Advocates for Trans Equality.
And in the same election that saw Trump return to the presidency, Delaware voters elected Sarah McBride, the first transgender member of Congress.
Paisley Currah, a political science professor at the City University of New York, said conservatives go after transgender people in part because they make up such a small portion of the population.
'Because it's so small, it's relatively unknown,' said Currah, who is transgender. 'And then Trump has kind of used trans to signify what's wrong with the left. You know: 'It's just too crazy. It's too woke.''
But Democratic politicians also know the population is relatively small, said Seth Masket, director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, who is writing a book about the GOP.
'A lot of Democrats are not particularly fired up to defend this group,' Masket said, citing polling.
For Republicans, the overall support of transgender rights is evidence they are out of step with the times.
'The Democrat Party continues to find themselves on the wrong side of overwhelmingly popular issues, and it proves just how out of touch they are with Americans," National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said.
Some of that message may be getting through. In early March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, launched his new podcast by speaking out against allowing transgender women and girls competing in women's and girls sports.
And several other Democratic officials have said the party spends too much effort supporting transgender rights. Others, including U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, have said they oppose transgender athletes in girls and women's sports.
Jay Jones, the student government president at Howard University and a transgender woman, said her peers are largely accepting of transgender people.
'The Trump administration is trying to weaponize people of the trans experience … to help give an archenemy or a scapegoat,' she said. But 'I don't think that is going to be as successful as the strategy as he thinks that it will be.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump warns China ‘not easy' as trade talks enter second day
Trump warns China ‘not easy' as trade talks enter second day

Telegraph

time27 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Trump warns China ‘not easy' as trade talks enter second day

7:34AM Good morning Thanks for joining me. Donald Trump said it was 'not easy' dealing with China but insisted he had received 'good reports' about trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing officials in London. Here is what you need to know as talks enter a second day. 5 things to start your day Apple's AI event falls flat as iPhone maker struggles | Investors sent shares downwards as Apple unveiled minor upgrades Thames Water lenders demand reprieve on fines in £17bn rescue deal | Ofwat urged to consider 'regulatory reset' after struggling utility giant hit with record penalty Nervous families freeze spending in blow to growth hopes | Fresh pressure on Rachel Reeves as retail sales rise just 1pc Miliband warned carbon capture project faces collapse without £4bn injection | Fledgling green tech has already received almost £22bn in public subsidies SNP ferry scheme suffers fresh blow after rain causes ship to flood | Glen Rosa is already behind schedule and £100m over budget What happened overnight Asian shares were mixed on Tuesday as investors kept an eye on the China-US trade talks that might help stave off a recession. A second day of talks was planned after US and Chinese officials met in London for negotiations over various issues. The hope is that they can eventually reach a deal to reduce painfully high tariffs against each other. Most of the tariff hikes imposed since Donald Trump escalated his trade war are paused to allow trade in everything from tiny tech gadgets to enormous machinery to continue. In Asian trading, Tokyo's Nikkei 225 gained 0.2pc to 38,177.71, while the Kospi in South Korea jumped 0.3pc to 2,865.24. Hong Kong's Hang Seng fell 0.2pc to 24,127.30 and the Shanghai Composite index was down 0.5pc to 3,384.47. In Taiwan, the Taiex surged 2.1pc to 22,242.14. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 advanced 0.8pc to 8,587.20. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was flat, at 42,761.76, the S&P 500 rose 0.1pc, to 6,005.88. and the Nasdaq rose 0.3pc, to 19,591.24. In the bond market, the yield on benchmark 10-year US Treasury notes fell to 4.478pc from 4.494pc late on Sunday.

California is losing the court of public opinion
California is losing the court of public opinion

Telegraph

time28 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

California is losing the court of public opinion

In the on-going Battle of Los Angeles, California governor Gavin Newsom may have the law on his side – but his adversary president Donald Trump has the most powerful imagery. The conflict began in Los Angeles on Friday, when mobs of protestors attacked agents of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who were trying to serve warrants on specific illegal immigrants at a Home Depot and also at a clothing store. On Saturday, during a protest in front of a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office, members of the crowd lit fires and threw rocks at federal officers, who defended themselves with tear gas and non-lethal ammunition. Later that day, president Trump authorised the deployment of 2000 members of the National Guard to protect the federal ICE agents; since then 700 American Marines have been added to the federal force. Governor Newsom and other leaders of the Democratic-dominated California have claimed that Trump's actions were not needed because local and state authorities had the situation under control. And yet on Sunday, following three days of violence and arrests, the Los Angeles Police Department declared downtown Los Angeles an 'unlawful assembly' area. And on Monday the state of California sued the Trump administration, claiming that Trump 'illegally acted to federalise the National Guard,' in the words of Newsom. Typically a governor requests a president to federalise and mobilise the National Guard to deal with riots or natural disasters. For example, consider the Los Angeles riots of 1992. It was sparked by the acquittal of four white police officers who beat a black motorist named Rodney King and it led to more than fifty deaths and a billion dollars of damage; in response a Republican California governor Pete Wilson asked a Republican president George HW Bush to federalise the National Guard. Not since 1965, when president Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, has a president sent troops without a governor's request. While California officials might be able to make a legal case against the Trump administration, the state and the Democratic party risk losing in the court of public opinion. Viral photographs show masked rioters waving Mexican flags in front of burning cars and debris, supporting the Trump White House's inflammatory claims about an immigrant invasion. In a shrewd public relations move, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released mug shots under the heading: 'ICE Captures Worst of the Worst Illegal Alien Criminals in Los Angeles Including Murderers, Sex Offenders, and Other Violent Criminals.' The rogues' gallery contains illegal immigrants from a number of countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mexico, charged with offenses including attempted rape, assault with a deadly weapon, grand theft larceny, distribution of heroin and cocaine, wilful cruelty to a child and other serious crimes. Democrats recently succeeded in reversing the allegedly unlawful deportation to El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was granted the right to remain in the US by a federal immigration judge. But on his return he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of being an MS-13 gang member who has smuggled thousands of illegal immigrants, drugs, and firearms in the US. Democratic strategists might ask whether someone like Abrego Garcia should be the face of the Democratic party. At least, unlike some of the rioters cavorting in front of burning wreckage in LA, he does not wear a mask.

Trump sends thousands more troops to LA as unrest continues into fourth day
Trump sends thousands more troops to LA as unrest continues into fourth day

ITV News

time31 minutes ago

  • ITV News

Trump sends thousands more troops to LA as unrest continues into fourth day

US President Donald Trump has deployed a further 2,000 National Guard troops as well as 700 US Marines to LA, escalating a military presence local officials describe as unhelpful and "sowing terror." An initial 2,000 troops began arriving on Sunday, which saw the most violence out of three days, with Governor Gavin Newsom claiming only 300 troops were actually used. "The first 2,000? Given no food or water. Only approx. 300 are deployed - the rest are sitting, unused, in federal buildings without orders," Newsom posted on X. Despite Monday's protests being less violent, Trump has continued to describe Los Angeles in dire terms that Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth. They say he is putting public safety at risk by adding military personnel, even though police say they don't need the help. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement he was confident in the police department's ability to handle large-scale demonstrations and that the Marines' arrival without coordinating with the police department presented a 'significant logistical and operational challenge' for them. Newsom called the deployments reckless and 'disrespectful to our troops' in a post on X. The protests began Friday in downtown Los Angeles after federal immigration authorities arrested more than 40 people across the city. The smell of smoke hung in the air downtown Monday, one day after crowds blocked a major road and set self-driving cars on fire as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. Additional protests against immigration raids continued into the evening on Monday in several other cities, including San Francisco and Santa Ana in California and Dallas and Austin in Texas. Local officials have pushed back against the president's orders, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta filing a lawsuit over the use of National Guard troops. He told reporters in his announcement Monday that Trump had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilising California National Guard troops,' Bonta said. He sought a court order declaring Trump's use of the Guard unlawful and asking for a restraining order to halt the deployment. Trump said Monday that the city would have been 'completely obliterated' if he had not deployed the Guard. Despite their presence, there has been limited engagement so far between the Guard and protesters while local law enforcement implements crowd control. The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration's mass deportation efforts. The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice. In a directive Saturday, Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store