It is still quite a long way to the 2028 presidential election. I expect to have further coverage of this question as the details change by then. For now there is the 2025 election in Virginia for state (commonwealth) offices. Virginia holds elections for state offices in odd numbered years. A governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general is elected every four years. The governor is limited to one and only one term.
Republican candidate for governor of Virginia in 2025, Winsome Earle-Sears, has television ads that accuse her Democratic opponent, Abigail Spanberger, of voting "for" legislation that would make it legal for transgenders to compete against women in sports, share locker rooms with women, and use pubic restrooms in a way that would interfere with women's rights.
I thought such ads were not telling an accurate story about Spanberger. I will explain why I was suspicious in more detail here a bit later. I wondered what bill number was on such legislation. The television ads by Earle-Sears create the impression that Democrats, along with help from Spanberger, introduced legislation to create any transgender rights. Surprise, surprise, that is not exactly what happened. What actually happened is that Republicans introduced a bill apparently intended to correct a problem that doesn't exist except in dirty campaign ads. As usual the Virginia legislature maintains a website where anyone can follow bills the legislature considers. There I found Senate Bill No. 723. From the wording of the bill, you can read yourself, it appears the people for the bill had some difficulty articulating any problem.
The bill does not prohibit men competing against women in sports, not exactly. Rather it has three categories of sports, those sports for men, sports for women. and "co-ed" sports where men and women can compete against each other. It prohibits men competing in sports that have been designated for women only, but not "co-ed" sports. In my cursory examination of the legislature website (computer searches) I did not find any mention of locker rooms or who might be forced to share locker rooms with whom. My own belief is that the school, coach, or other authority would not subject women to sharing a locker with anyone born a male. Rather that person born male would likely be assigned a locker in the locker room for males.
It is not exactly true then that Spanberger voted to "create" any transgender rights. It appears that what Democrats actually did was table a bill that was not well designed. Perhaps it was intended to improve the design of the bill so that it better addressed some real problem.
Regarding public restrooms, Virginia has laws regulating them, for example giving access to employee restrooms to members of the public who have specific medical conditions, but I did not find any Virginia legislation similar to the federal bill proposed by Nancy Mace regarding restrooms with more or less public access intended to prevent transgenders from spying on anyone. That is likely because civil engineers (yes, there is college for that) have already long ago made public restrooms very private and very safe.
Early in 1973 (that's about four years after the first moon landing) the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Then they tinkered with their definitions and no longer listed homosexuality specifically as a mental disorder.
It is important to understand what Democrats (and many Republicans) actually believe. It is not that they believe homosexuals are "sane" so much as it is that they believe homosexuals are not interfering in the rights of anyone else. As far as many people, Democrats and Republicans, are concerned a person may believe we all came from the planet Neptune as long as that believe does get into any conflict with the civil rights of other people. So it does not matter much whether homosexuals are "sane" as it matters how civil they can be to others.
There are many people in both political parties who are not seeing how homosexual marriage is interfering in any way with the marriages of heterosexuals. One possible reason they do not see it is that the meaning of all marriage has changed over time. At one time it was very important that the children of "married" people be the biological result of the married partners. There were exceptions of course. The parents of some children met with some tragic accident and it was deemed best those children be placed in some "family" environment, that they were adopted. Other parents failed to provide reasonable care for their children. Over the years there were more and more exceptions for less and less good reasons. So called "no fault" marriage laws spread across the country until finally the exception became the rule and there was no rule anymore. Now homosexuals can truthfully say their "marriage" means the "same" as heterosexual marriage. If heterosexual marriage means no more than a three dollar greeting card, then homosexual marriage can easily mean the same thing.
I said I would explain in detail why I suspected the television ads by Winsome Earle-Sears against Abigail Spanberger were not entirely accurate. That so few people are seeing any harm done by homosexuals is only part of it. I have noticed that whenever homosexuals try to interfere in the rights of others, it is only Republicans making such claims. But there is much more. Some people believe that in order to catch some types of criminals it is best to "pretend" they are not doing anything wrong. The plan is that the "criminals" will openly admit what they are doing and be subject to various public adjustments to their livelihood. Of corse that strategy will not work on some types of crime and in any case might cause more trouble than it "catches." I do not recommend it. It might be true though that some specific types of "crime" like being in our country without proper legal provision is better handled with methods that do not simply drive the activity off the public view.
If heterosexual marriage does not mean any more than homosexual marriage is it fair to blame the homosexuals? Probably not, but at least try to understand the feelings of some Republicans. They see a world where the meaning of marriage has been lost and want to restore it. It would be the height of absurdity to expect Trump to restore the meaning of marriage. Trump is probably a part of the reason marriage lost its meaning in the first place. Telling lies about how transgenders want to interfere with others probably will not help either, even it it might be true about an extremely few transgenders.
A final word here about whether transgenders are mentally ill, doctors still cannot give a person born to one gender the parts of the other gender that will actually work. As long as that is true it means that if a man wants to pretend to be a woman it can only be a fantasy, not a reality. Expecting others to play along with fantasies is not good mental health.