On 20 January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13975, a directive that compelled the United States government to recognise only two sexes, male and female, while simultaneously rolling back a host of diversity initiatives that had, for years, sought to accommodate a spectrum of gender identities.
In an age where the debate over sex and gender has become a defining social fault line, the policy was anything but parochial. Within hours, news of the order reverberated through capitals from London to Accra, Berlin to Bangkok. The question facing the world was no longer a matter of American domestic policy, but one of global consequence: What does it mean, in the twenty-first century, to be human?
This was not merely the latest volley in America’s ongoing culture wars. Instead, Trump’s executive order forced a reckoning that extends far beyond the United States. It compelled societies everywhere to confront uncomfortable questions about biological reality, gender identity, and the foundations of law and social policy. As demonstrations erupted in major cities and foreign governments scrambled to articulate official responses, one thing became clear: the implications of this order would not be contained within America’s borders.
A New Inflexion Point in the Gender Debate:
For the past several decades, Western societies have traversed a path toward greater inclusion of transgender and non-binary individuals, often enshrining their rights in law and policy. Language evolved, with public institutions adopting gender-neutral terms and new pronoun conventions.
Medical establishments, particularly in countries such as Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom, began to provide gender-affirming treatments, sometimes to minors. These developments were hailed by some as progress, evidence of societies becoming more compassionate and responsive to the needs of minority groups.
Yet, not everyone agreed. Critics, including a growing chorus of feminists, ethicists, and child welfare advocates, raised concerns about the rapidity and scope of these changes. Reports emerged of women’s sports being disrupted, female prison populations feeling unsafe, and young people expressing regret after undergoing medical transitions. In Europe, the so-called “Swedish turn” saw that country’s health authorities restrict access to medicalised gender interventions for under-18s, citing insufficient evidence of benefit and growing evidence of harm.
President Trump’s executive order, then, did not arise in a vacuum. It was both a response to and a catalyst for a debate that had been simmering in legislatures, courtrooms, and living rooms alike. What made this order exceptional was its scale and clarity: it drew a sharp line, asserting biology as the sole determinant of sex in law and government policy.
The Immediate Global Reactions:
International responses to the executive order were as swift as they were polarised. In Hungary and Poland, governments praised the move and moved quickly to pass or reinforce similar laws, barring gender changes on official documents and restricting public discussion of gender identity in schools. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin cited Trump’s order as inspiration for expanding the country’s own “traditional values” policies, including a broadening of the existing ban on what authorities call “LGBT propaganda”.
Elsewhere, condemnation was fierce. The European Parliament labelled the order “medieval” and threatened economic sanctions, arguing that it rolled back hard-won protections for sexual and gender minorities. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a £7.8 million fund to support organisations fighting what he termed “transphobic” policies at home and abroad.
Multinational corporations, including Apple and Google, issued public statements vowing to support transgender employees regardless of national laws, with over 200 firms collectively signing an open letter criticising the American policy.
Yet, beneath the surface of official pronouncements and street protests, public opinion appeared more finely balanced. Polls in the United Kingdom revealed that 62 per cent of adults opposed the use of puberty blockers for children under 16, while 58 per cent still supported anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals.
The global conversation was not one of simple binaries, but rather of conflicting priorities between fairness and inclusion, reality and compassion, science and ideology.
Implications for Women and Girls: A Return to Sex-Based Protections?
For many supporters of the executive order, the most significant impact lay in its potential to restore sex-based protections for women and girls. In recent years, female athletes have voiced growing alarm at the prospect of competing against transgender women, citing concerns over fairness, safety, and the integrity of women’s sports.
In the United Kingdom, the ban on transgender competitors in certain female events had set a precedent, but the American order gave new momentum to the cause. British Olympian Sharron Davies captured the sentiment succinctly: “We cannot sacrifice fairness for inclusivity.”
Similar arguments arose in the context of prisons and domestic violence shelters, where the presence of biological males identifying as women had led to documented incidents of discomfort and, in some cases, assault. Proponents of the executive order argue that the policy constitutes a necessary corrective, reasserting boundaries that had been blurred by well-intentioned but, in their view, misguided reforms.
Medical Ethics and the Question of Youth Transition:
Nowhere is the debate more fraught than in the realm of medical ethics, particularly regarding the treatment of minors experiencing gender dysphoria. Over the past decade, rates of referral to gender identity clinics skyrocketed—by some estimates, increasing by over 4,000 per cent in the United Kingdom since 2010. Alongside this surge came growing scrutiny of the evidence base for medicalised transition, especially the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments in children and adolescents.
The Cass Review, an independent assessment commissioned by the NHS, concluded that the “affirmation-only” approach to gender distress had failed many young people, with insufficient long-term evidence to justify existing protocols.
Sweden, Finland, and France, once seen as pioneers in gender-affirming care, subsequently scaled back access to such treatments for minors, emphasising psychological support over medical intervention.
Trump’s executive order, by prohibiting federal recognition of gender transition for legal purposes, effectively aligns the United States with this more cautious approach. Supporters argue that it could prevent countless young people from undergoing irreversible procedures they may later regret.
Critics, meanwhile, contend that such restrictions amount to denying care to vulnerable populations and risk exacerbating mental health difficulties among transgender youth.
Scientific Integrity Versus Ideological Capture:
A central argument advanced by proponents of the new policy is the need to preserve scientific integrity in the face of what they perceive as ideological capture. Over fifty years of genetic and biological research have confirmed the centrality of chromosomal sex (XX/XY) in determining biological sex. Supporters of the executive order argue that public policy must be grounded in this reality, rather than in subjective perceptions that may change over time.
The debate extends to the realm of research funding. The National Institutes of Health’s controversial “transgender mouse” experiments, a project costing nearly £6 million, have become a flashpoint in the argument over whether science is being driven by evidence or by political agendas. The executive order, by prioritising biological sex in law and policy, seeks to insulate scientific research from what its authors view as the encroachment of ideology.
The Freedom to Speak and the Right to Dissent:
Beyond questions of science and medicine, the executive order raises profound issues for free expression and civic discourse. In Canada and Scotland, laws have been passed that effectively penalise the “misgendering” of individuals, leading to fines or even criminal charges in some cases. Proponents of these laws argue that they are necessary to protect vulnerable minorities from hate speech and discrimination.
Trump’s order, by contrast, makes clear that the government will not compel speech or require individuals to affirm beliefs about gender that conflict with their understanding of biology. As British author J.K. Rowling put it, “No government should police pronouns.” The order thus becomes a symbolic rallying point for those who worry about the erosion of free speech in democratic societies.
Addressing the Critics:
Inevitably, the policy has faced fierce criticism from human rights groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, and sections of the medical community. The most common charge is that the order “erases” transgender identities and increases the risk of harm to an already marginalised group.
Yet, the order does not criminalise being transgender, nor does it bar adults from transitioning or expressing their gender identity. Rather, it insists that, for the purposes of public policy and legal recognition, biological sex must remain the operative category.
Others argue that the policy is a “right-wing crusade,” part of a broader backlash against social progress. Yet, support for sex-based protections has come from across the political spectrum, including feminist groups such as Women’s Declaration International and gay conservatives like the Log Cabin Republicans. What unites these groups is not partisanship but a shared belief in the importance of facts, evidence, and the protection of vulnerable populations.
A Historical Turning Point:
It is tempting to view this moment as just another chapter in America’s turbulent politics. But history suggests otherwise. The abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women, the civil rights movement—each was once dismissed as reactionary or divisive, yet each came to be seen as a moral reckoning.
The current debate over gender and identity may well be judged by future generations in a similar light. The question is not simply which side prevails in the short term, but what kind of society and world emerges from the struggle. Will we anchor our laws and institutions in biological reality, or will we embrace subjective identity as the organising principle of human life?
The International Domino Effect:
The global impact of America’s new policy is already being felt. Legal scholars point to the United States Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which legalised same-sex marriage and quickly influenced legislation and court rulings in dozens of countries. The same could happen here, with Trump’s order providing a template for governments seeking to reassert traditional definitions of sex and gender.
Medical standards are also likely to shift. As research funding and clinical guidelines follow policy, international medicine may be compelled to re-evaluate transition protocols, particularly for minors. Cultural trends, too, may be affected. In Spain, recent reforms removed gendered language from official documents, while in India, controversy has erupted over transgender wrestlers displacing female competitors. The American order offers a counterweight, emboldening those who wish to slow or reverse the spread of gender ideology.
The Role of Global Solidarity:
For those who support the policy, the imperative is clear: silence is no longer a neutral stance. “Neutrality in a burning house is complicity,” they argue, pointing to the tangible consequences of gender policies on women’s rights, child welfare, and scientific integrity.
Yet, for others, the order represents a dangerous retrenchment, a step back from the principles of inclusion and dignity for all. The challenge for policymakers is to navigate these complexities with honesty and compassion, ensuring that the rights and well-being of all citizens are protected.
Conclusion: A Choice That Will Echo for Generations.
History will judge this moment not merely as a political contest, but as a test of our collective values. President Trump’s executive order, for all its controversy, offers a rare anchor in an era of uncertainty—a declaration that facts still matter, and that reality cannot be endlessly rewritten to suit ideology.
For nations still wavering, the hour is late. The question is no longer whether the global debate over gender will be joined, but who will have the courage to engage it with clarity, evidence, and empathy. The ramifications will stretch far beyond today’s headlines, shaping the rights, protections, and identities of generations yet unborn.
The world is watching, and the decision, whatever it may be, will define not just our laws, but our understanding of what it means to be human.
