Sing whatever tune you think will make people vote for you, regardless of the fact you've sung a completely different tune in the past (apparently he was previously employed at a health company, and was instrumental in pushing through an anti-discrimination policy there that included TGs...)

As one of the article's commentators mentions, apparently 40% of US states have had anti-TG discrimination legislation for up to 35 years, and during that time there hasn't been a single assault on a genetic female in a toilet / toilet block by a TG. The combination of the number of states already implementing the policy, the length of time they've had it, and the complete absence of extra crime caused by it should destroy the main argument against the bill.

And veoting the bill is even more nonsensical when you consider every single candidate is pro-abortion and anti-gay discrimination. If a candidate was a fully signed up member of SPUC or Life (i.e. campaigning on a "pro-life" / anti-abortion platform) you could perhaps understand someone wanting to veto the anti-TG legislation, but not with the current crop.

 

---