Stories like “Attack Helicopter” are vital to unpacking the webs of intersecting forces which make up every human consciousness. They constitute an outlet for the suffering of marginalized artists raised in bigoted, imperialist cultures, a way to process the poison we’re spoon-fed from birth into something that awakens and lays bare. Calls for the destruction or censorship of such stories constitute a rejection of life’s intrinsic complexity, a retreat into the black and white moral absolutism of adolescence, or theocracy. These rigid moral strictures strip marginalized communities of their full humanity and of their history as makers of painful, difficult art stemming from their experiences as outsiders. They rob audiences of the space and tools necessary to engage art thoughtfully and in good faith. They make our world a poorer, harsher place, clannish and merciless, and smother beauty in its cradle.

This seems very disingenuous seeing as it's the marginalised communities saying that the short story was not written in good faith and that it should be censored for this very reason. That the author has since come out as trans is largely irrelevant, as this wasn't known at the time, and the way they used the "attack helicopter" meme evidently greatly hurt members of the trans community, which suggests the story was poorly, if sincerely, written.