Only a few days ago, a member of the Heritage foundation came out as transgender. Their collegues at the Heritage Foundation congratulated her - which would be a non-event if the Heritage Foundation wasn't the one think tank which pushes queerphobic and transphobic propaganda like no other.
That makes no sense, right? Why would the employees of one of the most transphobic propaganda machines out there accept the gender transition of anyone?
As paradoxical as it may seem on the surface, it's because queer-/transphobia is not principle by itself. It is only a piece of a larger puzzle that ultimately follows Wilhoit's law:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
The in-group cannot do wrong. Period.
So who belongs to the in-group? Of course, the loyalists of the right-wing and whoever they consider to be one of their own (that may be subject to change, if you aren't loyal enough to the cause). Loyalty to the cause represents moral righteousness.
A trans employee at a transphobic propaganda machine? In-group! So it's fine.
A rapist in the White House? In-group! No problem.
Sexual abusers in the police? In-group! No biggie!
But everybody who doesn't belong to the in-group (however vaguely it may be defined) needs to be controlled and oppressed by the harshest of laws. They are disloyal, therefore they cannot be moral and righteous, they have to be immoral and therefore deserve punishment.
Queer-/Transphobia is one way how that conviction manifests: It is the accusation that the behavior of queer people (outside the in-group) is inherently immoral because these people cannot be moral. If they were, they would belong to the in-group after all, but they don't, so whatever hatred one shows them is justified.