The article does the typical multi-attack against using the Bible as a basis for all decisions. It asked the question, "How many times does the bible mention transgender people and, more specifically, bathroom assignment?" Well, bathrooms did not exist when the Bible was written, and as for speaking about transgender people specifically, do keep in mind, the Bible does not identify everything by name. The Bible does not condemn cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc. by name, but there is a principle of not introducing harmful items into the body for it is the temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). As for transgender, would a male who thinks he is a female be seeking a male partner, and is not man parts being used upon other man parts condemned? Absolutely. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

So then when the article writer does find a verse that could work against the agenda, it has to label it in a negative light. "The Old Testament seemingly takes a rough line on cross-dressing in the book of Deuteronomy 22:5." So now that one has a picture that the Bible is too rough on cross-dressing, whatever else follows must be a more balanced approach.
Of course we have to further label the Bible as "out of step with modern times." What is interesting is that everyone was fine with the Bible being "in step" up through the 1800's and even the early 1900's. What the phrase actually means is that society has turned away from the Bible and is out of step with the Bible while wanting confirmation that all is well with God. Remember, the Bible is the only reference regarding eternal life. If the rules to live by seem out of step, so will eternal life then. In other words, as predicted, the world would distance itself so much so against the ways of God, and therefore in the end will not have eternal life.

So then if those attacks are not sufficient for people to keep the Bible closed, they then turn to exaggeration. They said, "The Bible, for example, has no issue with slavery, and even comes with helpful tips for slave masters, and endorses polygamy (for men) and murdering your cheating spouse." Although it is true that the Bible does not condemn slavery, the slavery referenced is a bit different than the slavery practiced in the 17 and 1800's. The helpful tips for the slave masters is to treat such people with respect even to the point that eventually they could treated as one's own son. This is a very big difference than modern slavery. Further, the slave topic is not to be taken about slavery as it is that religion ought not be involved in politics. So by not condemning slavery does not mean the Bible actually supports such as it is to not get involved with the politics of the day. Even Jesus did not condemn the paying of taxes to a conquering kingdom.

As for polygamy for men, it was not to be so. In fact, by the time we get to Jesus, it pretty much was nonexistent. There is no polygamy in the New Testament, in fact, it is encouraged to either remain single (1 Corinthians 7:8) or be married to one wife (Titus 1:6). Polygamy was practiced by even some prominent men in the Bible, but that does not make it right, just as there are sins committed unknowingly today. Now one may ask how could they practice such when they had the commandments that even King David danced before as the moved the ark from one place to another? How can such be permitted while prophets were in the land? Keep in mind that polygamy was universally practiced. Abram is basically the only godly man on earth, but he doesn't know everything, and it is not God's way of just doing a full down load of do's and do not's. Even Abram lied about his wife (Genesis 12:19). That does not make lying proper.

As for murdering a cheating spouse, we are not under a theocracy so such would be wrong to exercise in both New Testament as well as today.