I find articles like this almost impossible to interpret because there's very little definition. It's not only acronym soup; the acronyms themselves are so gene

I find articles like this almost impossible to interpret because there's very little definition. It's not only acronym soup; the acronyms themselves are so general that there's not much going on. In the UK the media often states like "Politician makes anti-X comment". The comment itself isn't published. So you end up just having to take on faith what actually occurred; you're not given the ability to judge whether the comment was hateful and dangerous, whether it was an off-colour joke that went a bit far, or whether it was totally innocuous but the journalists felt that they could spin a story out of it. Anti-LGBT could mean literally anything in this context. If they're boycotting states with the death penalty for being gay, that's a lot more justifiable than boycotting states that don't allow trans activism in schools. It's unfathomable to me that 17(?) states are doing anything even remotely close to the former, so what gives?