Overlapping Attacks: Gender Equality, SRHR, and LGBTQI+ Rights After Trump’s First Year Back

We are approximately one year into Trump 2.0, where the administration has dismantled the systems we have worked to build. Civil rights offices have been gutted, DEI programs paused or eliminated, data erased, and enforcement mechanisms present behind-the-scenes. Meanwhile, the decimation of USAID and the de-prioritization of global health have led to a radically different foreign policy architecture and the closure of health clinics, service disruption, and the shutdown of community organizations abroad. Gayatri Patel and Preston Mitchum, Senior Fellows with rePROs Fight Back, sit down to talk with us about attacks to LGBTQI+ rights and gender, and how these attacks intersect.

Attacks on gender equality have been front and center, as evidenced by the early release and adoption of Project 2025. This is, of course, exacerbated by attacking DEI and inclusion. From the federal to the state level, all-out assaults on gender equality, transgender health and rights, and sexual and reproductive health and rights continues. Attacks on LGBTQI+ issues are insidiously persistent. This includes the restriction of access to gender affirming care, the banning of transgender people from school sports, and the stripping of inclusive terms from federal guidance. Black and brown LGBTQI+ people, especially those dealing with poverty, immigration systems, or disability, are disproportionately feeling the rollbacks in rights.

LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE

Preston Mitchum on X
Preston Mitchum’s website
Gayatri Patel on X
DEI Is Not A Political Trend: Why Inclusion Must Survive Every Presidency

TAKE ACTION

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things related to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. [music intro]

Read More

Jennie: Hi, rePROs. How's everybody doing? I'm your host, Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/her. It has been a while since we've done some housekeeping, so let's kick off this week's episode with some housekeeping. Let's just talk about some of the ways that you can support the podcast. If you love the podcast, one of the first things you can do is rate and review us or subscribe to us or follow us on your favorite podcast platform. It helps with the algorithm and makes sure that people get eyes on their podcast and learn more in this sea of mis- and disinformation to make sure they are getting correct information about the fight for our sexual and reproductive health and rights and that they can find ways that they can get involved to fight back. So, yeah, tell a friend, tell people on social media, that would also be amazing. Did you also know that we have a merch store? Another way that you can support us is by buying our merch; we are on Bonfire. So, if you search for rePROs Fight Back on Bonfire, or if you look in the show notes, we have a link in our show notes so that you can buy our merch. We have these amazing designs that were done by Liberal Jane. They're on t-shirts, they're on bags and mugs and water bottles and more. I have already bought several things for myself from the merch store. I have given away things from the merch store. I really love all of our designs. I think they are just so great, and I love carrying them out and about in the world. So, I hope you will support the podcast and buy merch. Thank you to everybody who has already bought merch. It is like it makes me so happy every time I say show notes. And then last, you can also donate. If you go to our website, reprosefightback.com, you can donate there. And we also have giveaways with our donations. So, if you donate $25, you get a slew of stickers, also designed by Liberal Jane. And if you give $50, you get the stickers plus this really great tote bag that you cannot buy on the merch store that says abortion is a human right, not a dirty word. So, if you would love to support the podcast, buy our merch or donate, we would love that. We all love everybody getting involved in any way that they can. With that, let's, I don't know that I have much more I want to say in the intro to this week's episode, only because our episode is so long. But I will just note that this year already, and y'all, it's like mid-January, has already been a lot. There is so much going on. There's been some really traumatic things happening, and this week is also going to be a lot. It marks the anniversary of the court decision uh slip giving us abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, and those rights have since been taken away. So, many people are without access to abortion now because of the Dobbs decision that undid the Roe v. Wade decision. It also marks one year of Trump 2.0. So, there's gonna be a lot of looking back and seeing all of the things that have happened in the last year. So, there's just going to be a lot this week. So yeah, I think I'm just sitting with all of that right now, plus all of the things that have already been happening this year. It just, again, it feels like a lot. But I'm really excited for this week's episode. One, because I love both of our guests so much. They are so wonderful. They are senior fellows with rePROs Fight Back. They do a lot of great writing for us. We're lucky enough to have them come on the podcast every once in a while. And for the first time, we have them on the podcast together, which is super exciting. So, we have Gayatri Patel, Senior Fellow with rePROs Fight Back, and Preston Mitchum, also a Senior Fellow with rePROs Fight Back, on to talk about the ways that the administration has been attacking gender and the ways that it has been attacking LGBTQ rights. So, with that, let's go to this wonderful conversation I had with Preston and Gayatri.

Jennie: Hi, Gayatri and Preston. Thank you so much for being here today.

Gayatri: Hey, Jennie, always good to talk to you.

Preston: Yes. Thank you, Jennie. So, so glad to be here.

Jennie: Okay, before we get started, let's do a quick round of introductions. Uh, let's go alphabetically. Gayatri, go first.

Gayatri: Sure. Hi. I'm Gayatri Patel. I am a Senior Fellow with the rePROs Fight Back initiative. But I've been in this community of advocating on gender equality and human rights for 20+ years. So, I'm really excited to be here.

Jennie: It's wild when you start to think back over the time. Like, I'm like, oh my God, I've been doing this for so long now. Yeah.

Preston: Yes, Preston here, he/him pronouns. I'm also a Senior Fellow with the rePROs Fight Back initiative. I am based in Washington, D.C., been doing work related to LGBTQ health equities and gender equity for about 15 years now. And as I oftentimes chuck, I also happen to also do media and entertainment on Bravo TV. So that's always a fun, fun fact to spill here.

Jennie: Yes. So fun. And I was actually just thinking of you recently. I was listening to a podcast, and they started having a conversation around Black excellence. And I immediately thought of you. And I was like, oh.

Preston: And I appreciate that because I'll start this interview by saying that I did not get enough personal credit for that. And I finally am okay with knowing and believing that I deserve credit for starting national conversations. And so, I'm gonna make that here.

Jennie: Yes.

Gayatri: Absolutely. Preston, what a great combo of skills that you have in terms of your advocacy skills, your subject matter expertise, and also on top of that, your incredible messaging and media presence and skills. That's really fantastic.

Preston: Oh, I really appreciate it. I never thought I would be a nerd who also loved reality TV, but here I am.

Jennie: Okay, so now we have to turn to the bad. Sorry, y'all. We are when this comes out about one year into the Trump 2.0. And so, before we got into, like, the big conversation of all of the things that happened around the specific issues we're focusing on today, gender and LGBTQ issues, I thought maybe it would be good to just do the big picture. What are you thinking about one year in? And because I know you have lots of thoughts, Preston, I'm gonna go to you first.

Preston: Lots of thoughts always. So, one year into the Trump-Vance administration, I think the biggest headline for me is that the administration did not just come to govern or govern at all for that matter. It came to dismantle all of the systems that many of us have worked over time to achieve. I'm thinking about across federal agencies, we've watched civil rights offices gutted completely. We've seen DEI, sometimes belonging as well. So, DEI programs paused or ultimately eliminated, and enforcement mechanisms that have hollowed out behind the scenes. So, we've seen many examples where we know some things and other things have actually just gone silent, but they're still gutting them without TV or cameras being around. And it's not random. I think we all know that. It's incredibly coordinated and it treats diversity and equity as threats rather than core democratic principles and values. And for the rePROs Fight Back initiative, I actually wrote that in an issue brief called “DEI Is Not A Political Trend.” And we're really seeing a federal government redefine its purpose from attempting to serve everyone, right? We never had a government that always served everyone, but at least attempted to serve marginalized communities to serving a very narrow vision of who belongs in this country. And we've even seen most recently attacks by ICE fundamentally telling us who belongs in this country and who they believe belong in this country. And so what worries me most is the disappearance we can't see, as I stated earlier, missing language and regulations, race data, staff who are no longer there. And before I conclude, I would just say if the government as we know it today stops collecting information on disparities or on identities, it becomes easier to pretend that inequity doesn't exist in the first place. And I just want to leave with saying that that is a deliberate shrinking of our democracy. And so one year in, I am thinking about all of that attached.

Gayatri: Jennie, the audience can't see it, but I'm nodding vigorously here with everything that Preston said. It is, you know, a full-scale coordinated, targeted, deliberate attack on certain communities and certain ways of thinking that I think have taken decades to build up. And now we are faced with a very well-coordinated plan to not just pull those back a little bit or you know, take the focus off some of these issues, but to dismantle how we've been thinking and acting on issues such as gender equality and LGBTQI rights. What I see in practical terms is a very radically different foreign policy architecture. And Preston mentioned, you know, and regulations have been pulled back, positions have been eliminated, things like that. But these changes have very real impacts. When we're talking about things like gender in development, the loss of USAID as a structure isn't just like, oh, that's one but part of the government bureaucracy that's now gone. It's the loss of expertise, the loss of experience, the loss of connections and relationships across the world that have been built on trust, on just mutual understanding of priorities. That's gone. And the replacements are at best inefficient. But I think more, I think the idea here is like, let's deprioritize all of this by shoving it into a small office within another, you know, large bureaucratic department and let it fade away. And I think the very real impacts that we're seeing on the ground are, oof, I mean, life-threatening. We're talking about the closure of health clinics in in places that really, really need them, the disruption to services, the shutdown of organizations that United States support has really actually helped build and you know, build their ability to advocate and to act and to provide services on the ground within their own communities, we're pulling the rug out from under them. And so, I think big, broader systemic changes have had very real impacts on the ground, for the people that we think are important and communities that are important. I mean, everybody's important. That's the point is like that there it's creating this differentiation about who matters and who doesn't, which shouldn't be.

Jennie: I feel like that's a great gateway into the next thing I wanted to focus on, which is your guys' areas of expertise. So, let's turn to gender and talk about what are some of the attacks on gender specifically that we have seen over the last year.

Gayatri: Yeah. Well, I think there's an overlap. I'll start by saying there's an overlap between attacks on gender and attacks on LGBTQI rights, which I think between me and Preston, we'll be able to navigate. But I think the attacks on gender equality has been front and center since day one, since before day one, since Project 2025. It was very apparent that this notion of quote unquote "gender ideology" is very much on their hit list. And it's really exacerbated, as Preston mentioned already, by also attacking the idea of DEI and inclusion. And so, I'll just step back and say that their rationale has two parts. And I think it's really instructive in terms of how it's playing out. Number one, the "traditional" American family, meaning husband, wife, children, must be protected at all costs, must be elevated as the model of what American life should be based on. And that's the only way to lead towards prosperity in America. So, the greatest threats to the American family are "gender ideology," quote unquote, and abortion. And then the other part of their rationale is that DEI and any other effort to really shine a light on how there are disparities in how policy or practice or law impact different communities create divisions and unfairly discriminate against white, cis, men and women. And so, if looking at that as the two parts of their ideology or their thinking, their framework, we're seeing a coordinated attack on, I mean, through policies, through funding or defunding, through political appointments, through just an overall hostile rhetoric towards the notion of gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights. We're seeing executive orders, policy reversals, funding decisions that proactively denounce gender ideology or they call it gender ideology. For instance, the initial foreign assistance review, the one that started in January, where they stopped all programs for foreign assistance, was predicated on this idea that programs needed to be reviewed to see if they were promoting a gender ideology or were they promoting DEI? And if so, that was against the American interest and needed to be stopped. So, actions to eliminate reproductive choice, including what we expect to be a really wholehearted effort in multilateral spaces like the UN to push uh anti-gender or anti-sexual reproductive health and rights, language and thinking. And then things that are domestically at the state and federal level, legislation and litigation to attack trans rights or reproductive choice, et cetera. And so there it's just it's just a full-scale assault on these concepts and ideas, and they're just so much smarter at it this time around, unfortunately for us. And so we really have to see it as just intended to drive away these issues that we all care about so much and have fought so hard to push, push forward to advance.

Jennie: I was also thinking of it recently with the presidential memorandum pulling back from a lot of international organizations, including a lot at the UN that included UNFPA, which they had already kind of had already stepped back from, but they had to reiterate again UNFPA, UN Women, the UN Special Rapporteur on Sexual Violence and Conflict, like those stood out to me as like clearly going after women and gender.

Gayatri: Yeah, absolutely. And it's, I mean, part of it is- I in no way am saying like the Biden administration was perfect, but they had pushed forward so much on all of these issues, on gender-based violence, on reproductive rights, on trans inclusion, on LGBTQI rights as a whole. Like, there was so much that had been kind of built into the kind of the body of work that previous administrations have done, and it's like targeted. Like, "let's eliminate that, eliminate that, eliminate that, pull out of the World Health Organization, UNFPA," et cetera. They have a checklist of where we've operated, where we've pushed things forward, and they know how to pull it back.

Jennie: Preston, let's turn to you and talk a little bit about focusing on the attacks on LGBTQ rights. Like Gayatri said, all of this kind of overlaps, and we'll get to talking about how these work together in a minute, but let's turn to LGBTQ rights for the moment.

Preston: Sure. Gayatri is absolutely correct. I mean, these issues, as we know true to form, are deeply connected between gender and LGBTQ+ people. I mean, the the unfortunate truth is, also speaking of from US foreign policy global perspective, we even have someone like Reem Alsalem, who is the [United Nations] Special Rapporteur on violence against women, who's made very derogatory, harmful, and hateful statements against trans women in particular. And so, you start to see some of the attacks and start to see some of the division, even that some of those in the positions of power are trying to create between even cis women and trans women, and which is a layered argument here, but something that we're even seeing against people at the United Nations level. Guy Archie spoke very clearly about one of the clearest targets being gender itself, right? The administration is deliberately, as we're discussing, narrowing who counts, as stated earlier. But by doing so, they are redefining gender in many ways that's meant to erase trans, non-binary, and gender-expansive people from law and policy. And so, some of those bans have shown up, or some of those have shown up from bans on restricting access to gender-affirming care. Most recently, the Supreme Court just heard a case around trans young people in sports and trans people in sports. And that's another place [of] efforts to ban trans people from schools, sports, public spaces, writ large, the stripping of inclusive terms like gender identity or sexual orientation from federal rules and guidance. And that impact, as we know, is not theoretical, right? Like recognition will always have a gateway to rights. So, if we see states refusing to acknowledge who you are, it becomes easier to deny access to care, right? To ignore violence that happens or to exclude us from public life altogether. So, alongside this gendered erasure, we're seeing full rollback attacks on LGBTQ+ protections that really, you know, were new protections in many ways and were protections that many of us had fought over the past 10 years to make sure it was honored, right? Even in the United States, the thing I tell people, like, we just got marriage equality in 2015. Like, it's not as I know we talk about it sometimes as if it was, you know, this really thing of the past, but it's 2026. Right? 2015 was not that long ago. And so, we're thinking not only domestically, but internationally. We're withdrawing from global LGBTQ+ human rights commitments, right? We're quietly taking queer people out of diplomatic stations. Funding priorities look very different, and reporting looks very different. You know, even previously we had certain people who, like Randy Berry and Jessica Stern, right? We won't see them under the conservative administration, and certainly not one as conservative and harmful against LGBTQ people like Trump's administration. And so the last thing I'll say here is, you know, we're also seeing a time where Black and Brown LGBTQ+ people in particular, especially those dealing with poverty, immigration systems, or disability, feel every single rollback first and most harshly. You know, we're talking about attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, on gender rights, but we also need to make sure we're talking about them in terms of race and economics and access to housing, healthcare, safety, and general systems of belonging, right? So there are certainly the connected attacks, the interconnected attacks of gender and LGBTQ+ rights as they are coupled with race and socioeconomic status and disability status, among others.

Gayatri: Preston, totally agree with you. And I think that whether it's gender issues or LGBT issues or racial identity or the intersectional issues that we all deal with, the attacks on the structures, the architecture that has underpinned this idea that we do need to look at different impacts on different communities, whether it's a housing program or a food assistance program or health or whatever, that needs to be built into the analysis and the design and the implementation of how work happens is so critical. And it's very much a hallmark of how the Trump administration is attacking these rights. I mean, they are looking at the regulations that call for a gender analysis or call for a social analyst structure analysis before a program is even designed. And so, by eliminating all of that, as you said before, the intention is to kind of ignore that differences are there to make it easier to not have to do much about them. And so, I think the strategy of how they're doing what they're doing is really important here and often kind of invisible outside of, like, policy nerd circles, who those of us who are like really looking at every single policy statement that gets put out to see: how is this gonna play out, and how is it gonna impact the community that we're working for?

Preston: You're right, and I have to add to that too, because I would caution anyone to believe that these people are just so anti women and girls and femmes, anti-LGBTQ, anti-Black and Brown, et cetera, that they're just stumbling into knowing how to do this. They are, you know, this is not Trump 1.0 anymore. Right? Trump 1.0.

Gayatri: They're so much better at it.

Preston: Exactly. Had no intention of government, really were just making sure that they were lighting a match and throwing it into something and hoping that a big fire would combust, right? Like this is different, right? They know how to strike the match, they know how to start a fire, and they know how to pour gasoline on it. And that is what's even more terrifying is they are hiring and appointing people who do have the law degrees, who do have the medical degrees. We may disagree with them in terms of policy and health and health equity, but they have it. And so, in some ways, there's already, there's already an [inaudible] of some kind of veracity or some kind of professionalism that some people, if they don't know any better, it seems good. Right? And they're very intentional and they know exactly what they're doing. And so that's why we can never stop fighting because we have just as much, if not more, of that. But what we really have is our integrity and our principles and our values. That is something that I honestly do believe, maybe not today, but one day will matter again in this fight.

Gayatri: Yeah, they're really good at marketing their ideas. And I think having those MDs and PhDs and folks in positions to serve as "experts," quote unquote, on these matters really does go a long way, as you said.

Jennie: Again, with the, like, doing it more strategically and thinking through these things, they're really doing this intentionally to try and peel groups off from each other, right? Like, trying to get the people who work on women and girls’ issues to maybe not stand there for our trans sisters and trying to like peel off groups. And so that is why it is so important that we are not only having these conversations together, but also holding our friends accountable. I feel like both of you probably have thoughts on that. So, let's go with Gayatri.

Gayatri: I think that's one of the first things I learned in the first Trump administration, that all of these issues are interconnected. If they're attacking the LGBTQ community, they're attacking gender equality. Like they're if they're attacking immigrant communities, that has an impact on what I'm working towards on gender or reproductive choice. All of these issues are so interconnected, we have to look at it as interconnected. And we can't fall to the trick of, you know, my issue is more important than yours, if it's based on the same ethos of you know, none of these issues should be important. So, I think that the more that advocacy communities work together and see each other's issues as critical across the board, the better. But I say that with the caveat because in times like these, it's so hard to not be so hyper-focused on your own issue or your own challenge or the attacks against your thing, and to actually see the interconnectedness with other communities and issues. And so, in practical terms, I don't know if Preston has advice or better thinking on this, but I know it's important. I just know it can be hard in a challenging environment.

Preston: You know, Gayatri is absolutely correct, right? I mean, I think it's intentionally harder to feel interconnected when you all are being attacked. And by that, I mean, it fundamentally, like white supremacist rhetoric fundamentally tells us and unfortunately teaches us that we're in competition with each other, especially when times are hard. It's the same reason why we believe we're only fighting over the same resources. Scarcity mindset happens a lot to a lot of our communities. It's just something I've seen, and I'm sure all of us, um both listeners and you, Jennie and you, Gayatri, have heard before, right? Like, it's a scarce mindset, and in many ways it's very intentional and makes us think that way, right? But people who are working on or identify as marginalized communities in terms of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, the work that we're doing on DEI, like we have to have a joined-up strategy. That's the only way for all of us to really do this work and achieve some wins together. And to the point made earlier, it's not easy, right? But I think we have to know if trans people, as an example, are race from federal definitions, it's easier to take away their legal protections, right? If you gut DEI infrastructure, we remove this mechanism that fixes discrimination. And if you silence LGBTQ+ people in advocacy, we shrink the political plays that they can be involved in, right? But what that says to me is that these attacks reinforce one another, right? And so, because these attacks reinforce one another, our movements must reinforce one another too. And so, but that also means that we need to self-critique with honesty. So, when we say things like intersectionality, do we trust Black and Brown trans women to lead? Do we center the people most harmed or simply the people most resourced? If our movements reproduce the very exclusion that we are critiquing, we're not gonna be able to defeat it. So I think that's more of a personal hope and theoretical framework. More than anything, I think the goal is to figure out how we're moving from theory to practice because I think a lot of us know how to say the right thing. But when we're put into practice, we realize those words really fall short.

Gayatri: I agree with that, Preston. And I want to underscore one thing that you said that really resonated, which is we're essentially making it easier for them to build their attacks when we're attacking each other or just not living up to our own principles within our own communities. And so, I absolutely agree that we do need to have that kind of joint way of thinking. Or not a way of thinking, but a joint commitment to each other, each other's communities, but also a willingness to like to walk the talk in terms of how we do it.

Preston: Agree, because if not, we're- I mean, I think of this domestic example often. We've been trying to pass, or I should say, advocacy communities have been trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for a couple of decades now. I think they've tried less over the past probably eight years or so, but have been trying to pass this one bill to prevent employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. And in the 90s, there was a specific moment where a lot of mainstream LGBTQ+ groups were pushing forward in Congress, and there was pretty much some closed-door conversations that had happened that members of Congress had told a couple of these leaders that if they just moved forward with sexual orientation discrimination, they would then come back later to put in provisions to not discriminate against trans and non-binary people. And they did. And guess what? We still don't have that bill today. And so, I think what that teaches me is that we think we're gonna achieve whatever our version of a win is, and we still don't win. But what we then do is tell those communities that are already marginalized that we will move forward full statement head without them. And those organizations have still, 15 to 20 years later, found it hard to build with the trans community because they don't trust them anymore. And so, it's stuff like that where it's like if we are not moving in the same direction together, of course we're gonna have disagreements. Of course, we're gonna try to figure out how to get a win and negotiate. But I'm at this point in my advocacy career, especially, where I don't find us to win if only one group of ours are winning. To me, that's not a win. And it makes it harder to organize, to be sure. I get it. It's why the right is so successful. They don't give a damn about any of that. They're like, we just need to win something. And we're like, actually, we need to care about humanity and people, and that's hard.

Gayatri: Sorry, Jennie. Can I jump in and ask Preston a question about that? Because I come across this a lot in, or I have come across this a lot in the advocacy that I've been doing. How do you differentiate between an incremental win and a win that does damage to a broader interest?

Preston: See, I love that. And the way that I usually break it down from in my head, and even with clients, is are we speaking about advocacy and communications and narrative change, or are we speaking about policy wins?

Gayatri: Policy.

Preston: I do think that sometimes policy wins become a little bit trickier because you are working, like it's not just you creating the narrative. You are fundamentally working oftentimes with elected officials. And those elected officials are usually the ones driving legislative change. Like we are obviously pushing externally a lot of times, but they're the ones that are actually figuring out what the win is. Now, advocacy in my head tells us that we can inform that based on storytelling, based on communications, based on how we're messaging something specifically. I usually, and this is an unfortunate thing at times, tell clients that sometimes you have to, you can have a policy win and an advocacy loss, and vice versa. Right. And so there are times you can absolutely win something legislatively, but your advocacy has stalled. Like there's no real space for movement building anymore. There's no real space for storytelling or counter storytelling. And so, this is case by case, but I think people have to figure out what the larger purpose is. Is it a policy, legislative goal, or is it really a mainstream, large-scale, sometimes most of the time, I would say, on-the-ground effort for advocacy wins in conversations. And because advocacy for me involves a lot of the organizing work. It involves a lot of the communications and narrative shifts and talking points that I think legislatively we've made interchangeable. And I don't think they're interchangeable.

Gayatri: Interesting. Yeah.

Preston: But again, it's hard, right? Because I do think there's space for incremental wins. There has to be. That's just the nature of where we are. But I do think we oftentimes have to struggle together with the incremental wins, who have we oftentimes left behind and usually not gone back for.

Gayatri: I think that I see that as a challenge in self-critique within our own progressive movement building, writ large, across issue areas that that it something that a policy decision that one community sees as an incremental win that has not harmed another community, but something that will help build towards something that has broader positive impact for a progressive movement, is by other communities seen as, oh, you you've just thrown us under the bus. Yeah. And I think that there's a lot of push and pull when it comes to how we within a progressive community look at those fault lines.

Preston: I will say I think you just drew a distinction which I appreciate. And I think the distinction that you just threw out there was that it has not done harm to the other communities. Yeah. And I think that's important. I think that is something that if a win for a marginalized community, I look at as a win for many of us, if not all of us. I think unfortunately, though, when it comes to certain things legislatively and even in advocacy conversations, we rarely see a time where one community wins without the exclusion of another community losing.

Gayatri: I would agree with that. Sorry, Jennie, didn't mean to take this into more of a theoretical conversation.

Jennie: No, it was a great conversation. So, I was not about to cut that off.

Gayatri: Preston, I could talk with you about this stuff all day.

Preston: Yeah, same. It's why we love doing this work together, right?

Gayatri: Exactly.

Preston: I know we have to come in with a very similar vision, even when our goals may ultimately not be the same all the time.

Gayatri: 36:09 Yeah.

Jennie: Okay. So, one of the things I'm thinking about because it's January, is: what are you keeping an eye on for this year going forward around these issues?

Gayatri: Funding. The appropriations bill came out a couple of days ago. I think it's a real signal for where Congress is sitting on these issues, how much they're willing to hold the administration accountable for some of its decisions. So, I'm really looking at funding.

Preston: Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, funding is the name of the game, right, wrong, or indifferent. That's always gonna be important to look at. I am thinking also about what is a strategy that pairs kind of this urgent defense with long-term visions, which is easier said than done, I think. But I think something defensively I've been thinking through is: how are we gonna rebuild and restore civil rights enforcement infrastructure, right? With midterms coming up in about 10 months, what does that look like? How are we thinking about that now? You know, we know we're gonna have the same executive, but there is gonna be some opportunity from some shift at the legislative. And so, what can probably not be in the Senate, but in the House. But what, so what can that look like? If anything, is there a place to defend? And then, of course, specifically for trans people, who are we working with either in states or nation states to protect access to things like gender affirming care at different levels of government? And then, really just think about infrastructure, like, how are we building new models of leadership? How are we growing a pipeline of organizers and advocates? And then really, I really want to tackle, or at least, well, I'm not gonna individually tackle it, but as a community, how are we tackling DEI? There are people who are still not using it at all. There are people who are still afraid to have this conversation. And we've been battling this for almost a year now. And I just don't know what that means for 2026. And so, I do think that it could be a really good opportunity for expanding language or just even thinking through something that's more transformational.

Jennie: I think I'll just add my one thing that kind of piggybacks off of what y'all said is yes, funding and appropriations, but then: does it get spent? How does it get spent? I mean, there's no USAID anymore. So, what does that mean if Congress funds gender programs or family planning? Like, where is the money gonna go? Is it gonna be spent? Is the administration just gonna be like, screw you, we said we're not doing it, we're still not doing it. So, like, what does that mean? So, I think that that's like the funding story, I think it is like the two parts: the commitment that we still want, Congress still wants that money to go to these programs, but then what happens after.

Gayatri: I mean, one additional point on the funding aspect. I think we all have to go into this, understanding that even if there aren't massive, huge, dramatic losses to funding for the issues that we are working on, that doesn't mean it's that we've won the battle. Like, so many of our priorities were massively underfunded to begin with. And so, not taking a loss is, like, short term relief. But the bigger picture is we need resources to meaningfully reach the goals that we're trying to reach. Whether it's gender equality or LGBTQI rights or health equity or whatever, we need the resources. And so, we can't stop fighting the battle. And Jennie, I think that's where your point comes in really, really beautifully. Even if we get the funding, we need to continue holding their feet to the fire in terms of how it's spent, how the programs within each thing are actually designed. Are they taking into account those disparities? Are they doing any sense of nuanced analysis? And one point I wanted to make earlier in terms of why the loss of some of the infrastructure is so important is because without it, it widens gaps. And so, we really need aid and foreign assistance programs to not do that, to do no harm and to not throw communities under the bus, ignore needs, especially when it comes to humanitarian crises. And so, yeah, how this funding is allocated, but then how it's spent and programmed.

Jennie: Okay. As you both said, I've talked to y'all for forever, but I want to be respectful of everybody's time. I always love to end conversations though, focusing not just on all the terrible, but think through the ways the audience can get involved. So, do you have any suggestions for how our audience can get involved at this moment? And Gayatri, since you're already off mute, go for it.

Gayatri: I think we're in a moment where folks see activism as their main way of engaging in the politics of today. And so, as people are joining protests or signing petitions or acting, speaking up on the issues that they care about, I really urge folks to examine issues beyond their issue. So, when you're when you're denouncing ICE raids, like are you actually, are you thinking about the impact of ICE raids on immigrant women or LGBTQI individuals who are being deported to countries where they will most certainly be treated hostily? So, thinking about those issues even within your issues and thinking across lines. But in terms of specific actions, I think it's so important, so, so important to put pressure on our policymakers and decision makers. And that might feel like you're screaming into a void sometimes, but it's the fundamentals of democracy, right? Like you have to you have to make your voice heard and your thoughts known. And I'm fortunate to live in a community where my elected representatives are very much in sync with the things that I want policymakers to value. But if you're living in a community or in a in a state where there's dissonance there, it's even more important for you to have your voice heard. So, call, write, attend town halls, etc. Make your make your values heard.

Preston: Yeah, absolutely agree. And especially the last point. Like, I really do believe that it is even more important to make your voices heard when you're in a community or you live in some place where they intentionally want to take away your right to vote, even as an example, as we see a lot of gerrymandering happening across the country right now. And so, I don't have too, too much to add, but I'll say, you know, just learn and share the truth. Like, I really love what Gayatri is sharing around: what about the issues that actually you've never thought about or that may not personally impact you? Do you still care? What does your empathy look like on issues and people who don't look like you and things that you may never personally or directly experience? I think that really matters. But learn what you are sharing and believing. There's so much myths and disinformation out there, and I see it all across social media all the time, because someone puts a fancy caption on a pretty graphic and people share it. And meanwhile, it's incorrect, right? Meanwhile, it is actually factually inaccurate information. So, I think we ought to do better, doing a little bit more personal research before even sharing or writing things. Support local organizers, always, always support local organizers, push our institutions to do and be better, whether it's schools, workplaces, uh health clinics, that's really important. Obviously, advocacy, protests, showing up, showing up counts a lot. And voting, right? Voting up and down the ballot on the issues that we care about, whether it's school boards, state legislatures, federal, it's just really important for protecting the rights of LGBTQ and other gender expansive folks. And everyone, everyone has power. Everyone has power. I know the way we usually look at power, like those who are elected are the only people with power. No. No, we all have power and we all have a role to play in this fight. And so, those are some of the things that the audience can do to really push back.

Gayatri: Thank you for articulating so much, so, so much more eloquently than I did, Preston.

Preston: No, I couldn't have gotten there without you, friend.

Gayatri: Can I just add one more thing? Because what you were saying, Preston, just had had me thinking about misinformation, but also just like, oh, what seems like a proliferation of hatefulness on social media or other public domains. And Preston, you're much more into the communication space than I am, but like whenever I come across it, I never want to get into like a Twitter war with somebody, but I feel like it's so important to this collective narrative to continue calling that the those the hatefulness out and correcting misinformation. So, I'm really glad you talked about how critical it is to inform yourself.

Preston: Absolutely. And if you don't want to, just tag me next time. I'm happy to. [Preston and Gayatri laugh]

Gayatri: There are so many times I've wanted to get into like comment wars with, and then I realized that, oh, this is like some 17-year-old and somewhere else that I should I shouldn't, I should not, I should be the adult in the room.

Jennie: I think the place I go to is, like, snark. And I'm like, no, because that never translates well, right? I know what I'm saying, and like that I'm like... nope, we're just not gonna get involved. Okay, y'all. As always, such a pleasure to talk to both of you. Preston, Gayatri, thank you so much for being here today.

Preston: Thank you.

Gayatri: Thank you. It was so great to talk with you both.

Jennie: Okay, y'all. I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Gayatri and Preston. I love them both so much. It was so wonderful to get to talk to them. It was an even more amazing conversation than I had hoped for when we had set it up. It’s always so wonderful to hear their thoughts. And it was a really wonderful, wide-ranging conversation. So, I hope you enjoyed all of it. And with that, I will see everybody next week. [music outro] If you have any questions, comments, or topics you would like us to cover, always feel free to shoot me an email. You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com, or you can find us on social media. We're at rePROs Fight Back on Facebook and Twitter, or @reprosfb on Instagram. If you love our podcast and want to make sure more people find it, take the time to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform, or if you want to make sure to support the podcast, you can also donate on our website at reprosfightback.com. Thanks all.