But you are trying to argue that they aren't anti LGBT. Of course one crazy person does not make the whole but one can conclude that if he or she says X people should be killed then they certainly are against those people.
Re the pee comment :
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...tives-increasingly-care-where-you-pee-180669/
No, I'm trying to understand the assertion being made - that Republicans ARE anti-LGBTQ. The person making the assertion bears the burden of proof.
Argument 1 was that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is anti-LGBTQ. But, polls show like 60% of Republicans support same sex marriage, and the fact is, many of those who don't support "marriage," nevertheless support civil unions. So, it doesn't seem like it's a big point against the Republicans, whose position has "evolved" from being against same sex marriage, by and large, to now being by and large unopposed to it. And, Democrats had the same evolution, but evolved a few years sooner, but not many years. So, it's odd to say that Repulbicans are anti-LGBTQ because they used to overwhelmingly oppose same sex marriage, when the same can be said for Democrats, only the Democrats changed about 4 or 5 years before Republicans did.
Argument 2 - the crazy former Mississippi gubernatorial candidate - that example actually shows "the GOP" does NOT endorse such views, since that guy was essentially voted out of the legislature, and lost an election for governor to another Republican, who does not share his views. So, this crazy guy's ideas lost.
Argument 3 - where you pee - well initially no argument or support was offered for that allegation. It was just an assertion made. You've now offered support a Rolling Stone article entitled why Republicans increasingly care where you pee. Well, the article doesn't address anyone's concern for "where you pee." It addresses communal bathrooms, and which sex should use the men's or the ladies' room. Certainly, it can be argued that the proposed law in South Dakota (which the Republican governor vetoed, by the way) was over a concern for where people pee, the people that the bill was concerned with were males going into women's rooms (where women generally have been free from male presence for time immemorial). That's where women go to "freshen up" and to take care of hygienic issues as well as do their business. The reality is that most women don't particularly want people with cocks and balls going in there, as it's usually a female space. And, what people are concerned about is not so much the peeing, but the presence of males, which allows males who aren't really trans (but may be crackpot pervs who are going in there for pervy reasons) from going in there.
Further to argument 3, nobody really cares much if females use the men's room. It's pretty common, when a line at the ladies' room gets long, women will sometimes just go to the men's room. It's not as intimidating to men, most of the time. Usually a communal men's room is full of urinals, and guys just have to take their dicks out and they can relatively easily be viewed by others in the room. Generally, men aren't all that concerned if a woman wants to go in there. But, when men go in the women's room, it's more of a problem.
The translobby wants to say that a "transwoman" is a real woman, even if that person has a **** and balls, and pees standing up at a urinal. Well, most people don't really see it that way, and there are many women who wouldn't be too cool with it. It's not bigotry, really. It's just that it's been pretty normal for women to have a space to do various business without men around. And, now the translobby wants to say it's transphobic to suggest that women should have that space. Well, if that persuades you that Republicans are "anti-Trans" then I guess it persuades you. It doesn't seem to me to be too strong of an argument, though.
