The -ette suffix is normally applied to women, not objects designed specifically for women. Thus suffragette, your dudette, usherette and the like. The French language uses -ette to feminise names: Paul/Paulette, Claude/Claudette, etc., and the same principle is used to feminise some nouns in English to create a female variant.
By extension it can also mean "small", cigarette, novelette, Nissan's Vanette and so on. These aren't female, or specially for women.
It's not normally used to create a noun like scooterette meaning "a scooter for women", although perhaps it's simply a smaller scooter which happens to appeal to women (and not men, so it's ridden exclusively by women).
If it is a participle, then it should behave like a participle.
As verb forms, participles license arguments and adjuncts.
Consider these examples:
1) He receives no respect due his status.
2) He receives no respect due to his status.
Example 1) resembles a participle with an argument. Example 2) resembles a participle with an adjunct. Argument and adjunct have different relationships to the verb, as demonstrated by the different implications of each sentence. In example 1), his status requires respect, but the requirement is not fulfilled. In example 2), his status requires a lack of respect, and that requirement is fulfilled.
This differs from the way adjectives behave. Although example 2) vaguely resembles an adjective with a modifier (say, "happy with his status"), example 1) doesn't resemble an adjective. The simple noun phrase "his status" does not make sense as a modifier of an adjective. "His status" could be an object, but adjectives don't take objects.
This also differs from the way that prepositions behave. Although example 2) resembles a preposition with an object (say, "for his status"), example 1) has no suitable object.
Several resolutions to this dilemma are possible. The word "due" might be an adjective in some cases but a preposition in others. It might be a preposition that is transitive in some cases but intransitive in others. It might be a participle.
Given a choice between using one label to explain the word's behavior and using a collection of labels that are assigned on a case-by-case basis, a single label is the better choice. As long as participle remains a viable candidate, we can avoid the messiness of having different labels for different use cases.
If "due" is sometimes an intransitive preposition, then we would expect the bare intransitive case to follow a noun that it modifies. However, common phrases like "all due respect" and "due diligence" show a different pattern. They show the same word placement that we see with other participles: "all required respect" and "required diligence", for example. As long as participle remains a viable candidate, it remains a better fit than preposition.
Assuming that participle is a viable candidate at all, it seems to be the front-runner.
Participles are used in passive voice constructions and perfect aspect constructions.
This is where I have a problem. Although the construction "this is due" works, the construction "this has due" fails.
Calling "due" a participle forces me to accept a strange lexical gap. However, it wouldn't be the only such gap that must be acknowledged. Defective verbs do exist in English. Several auxiliaries lack non-finite forms. A lack of finite forms can be surprising and rare without being impossible.
Unfortunately, I cannot examine why "this has due" fails without access to the base form of the verb. It seems possible that "this has due" is senseless only because "this deves*" and "this deved*" don't exist. If this strange, defective verb lacks finite forms, that implies that it may entirely lack the active voice.
I have not yet stumbled upon a use case for this word that cannot be explained by using the label participle. I have stumbled upon a use case for participles that cannot be formed with the word "due". The best description I have for this situation is that "due" is a defective verb that lacks any active voice form.
I'm faced with two pills, and each is hard to swallow. I find the defective verb to be smaller and less jagged than a haphazard bunch of otherwise unrelated parts of speech.
The word "due" is best understood as an unusual example of the so-called past participle. This funny little word is a verb that lacks a base form, the entire active voice conjugation, the infinitive, the gerund and the so-called present participle.
_______________
* It is easy enough to imagine a placeholder like "to deve". It is not quite as easy to be confident that the imaginary behavior of an imaginary verb reflects anything useful about reality.
Best Answer
There is only one tensed verb in:
Since is is the present tense third-person singular indicative of to be, this sentence is in the present tense.
As for trapped, it is an adjective. You may call it a participial adjective if you’d like. But it is not a verb, and therefore it is not a past participle.
Note that English has two sorts of productive -ed suffix for making adjectives. One is used for making adjectives out of verbs, but the other is used for making adjectives out of nouns.
Those are all just adjectives; they have no verb that they were derived from.
In the case of trapped, it could go either way here since trap is both a noun and a verb. But it was likely derived from the verb, which makes it a participial adjective. It stopped being a verb when it stopped being used as a verb.
For it to be considered a past participle, it has to start functioning as a verb again, and it is not doing that here. Transitive verbs take objects and can be turned into passives by putting the subject trailing behind it with a by to indicate where it went. If a bear pursued Antigonus then he might exit pursued by a bear. If Blackadder punches Shakespeare’s nose, then the nose punched by Blackadder might well begin to bleed.
Those are both past participles. But neither a pursued Sicilian nor a punched Bard involves any past participles, only adjectives, even though they started out life as verbs. To be part participles, they must continue to function as verbs, and here they do not — unlike in the previous paragraph.
You cannot test whether it is a verb merely by checking whether it comes in front of the noun or is instead used predicatively. A person who attends a costume party dressed as a devil would likely come horned. You would say that they are horned. But no one horned them; they are only wearing horns. So that is still an adjective, not a verb.
If someone takes a nap, then they are rested. Rested is just an adjective. It is not a past participle — nor can it be made into one in a passive construction since rest is intransitive. Nobody rested that person, but they are still rested, and presumably a well rested person.
In contrast, if you say that they have rested, rather than that they are rested, then rested is a past participle because it is a verb again, since it is being used in the present perfect construction. But you cannot make it a passive, since you cannot rest somebody.
You can say the same about someone who is gone versus someone who has gone. If they are gone, then gone is an adjective. If they have gone, then gone is a verb. But you cannot go somebody, so it is not passive nor can it be made such, not even things gone by the wayside, since waysides cannot go anyone.