> You don't view it as morally different because you don't respect the civil rights of people who who are LGBTQ+.

I understand that you're new here and probably think this is someplace where you can make assumptions about people, like on certain other social media sites. But I am actually a gay judge advocate (military attorney) who helped write the Obama policy allowing transgender service for the first time in U.S. history.

The fact that I believe reasoned, accurate, and earnest political discussion is important does not give you, or anyone else prone to hysterics, any basis to conclude what exactly my policy positions are.

Instead, what it demonstrates is this: in my experience, respecting people who disagree with me—even when the disagreement is something I'm emotional about and affects me personally—has allowed me to win more hearts and minds. And what's more is, it's the right thing to do. Making false accusations against people you are mad at is not virtuous under any circumstances.

It's my sincere hope that you take this teachable moment and reflect on how to be a better participant, both here on HN and in our nation's policy-making machinery.

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.