I can only respond to your stated positions, as I did here. Regardless of who you are, if you want to regard this as a policy debate that's fine but to me that'

I can only respond to your stated positions, as I did here. Regardless of who you are, if you want to regard this as a policy debate that's fine but to me that's a clear lack of respect for what is a civil rights issue, and is obviously fundamentally different from eg. shoplifting. Just the same as if someone wanted to claim that segregation was a "policy debate" and worthy of respect or consideration. I have made no false accusations that I am aware of. You are welcome to respect whoever you want, I personally do not truck with bad faith strawmanning of an issue that is quite close to my heart. If someone wants to chat about eg. tax policy or urban planning I will give them as much time and respect as I have available. If someone wants to debate the fundamental rights of myself and others I will give them my exact evaluation of them and their positions. edit: I recognize and appreciate that HN has a pretty strict commenting policy. I think that this entire subthread has gotten quite far afield of the original post, which was regarding Brave. Even the topic of the comment we are replying under was rather different from where we have gotten to now. I think that I have made my position abundant clear, which is that denying someone a right based on their identity is sufficiently close to "not wanting them to be allowed to exist" that OP's comment was not a gross mischaracterization of Eich's (possibly past) beliefs. I don't think further discussion is going to change anyone else's mind about this, and at best is going to continue degrading into a "how dare you"-fest, so I'm leaving this here. I appreciate the work you did in support of trans people in the military, and I authentically hope you have a good day.