A very "semantically open" use of 'anti-', as some may be surprised to know that there are people who watched that episode and did not judge it the least deprecatory towards any category.

"I mean", as if Douglas Reynholm (the "phobic" - finally, a literal case - in the episode) was drawn as an exemplary character, a model of a human being... "I mean II", I checked on a search engine for the spelling, and the first under-link stub that resulted is «Douglas Reynholm was an incredibly arrogant, self-righteous, pompous, cruel and elitist egomaniac who considered himself to be somewhat above everybody else. He viewed women as objects to feel and manipulate to his incredible sexual mania»...

The classic issue with censorship. "I don't enjoy it, therefore, nobody should be allowed to enjoy it. And I won't be happy until nobody else can enjoy it. If you enjoy it, that makes you <insert moral judgement here>. And because I am not that, and nobody who is <insert moral judgement here> is for that content, it should be removed."

Now... I will admit, it isn't always wrong (CP). But it often is the fruit of an unwitting narcissism.

The person you're engaging with wasn't making an argument about whether it should be censored, just that the pulled episode was clearly anti-trans

There is also a possibility that the poster subtly willingly replaced 'anti-' with "[all that in actual evidence from this side appears is that apparently,] you don't enjoy it", and on that basis returned to (an argument about) the original point of censorship.

so don't watch it.

with censorship nobody can watch it.

Right, why is it I can stream Hitler's speeches as much as I want, but this one episode is apparently too dangerous?

we are beset with tiny Hitlers wielding small amounts of power in every organization.