I can't even tell what position you think the OP is taking, let alone what they think.

Let's try an analogy. Suppose someone says, "What I love most about Christmas is how everyone comes together in unity to share this holiday!"

And you say, "I have a tingle of joy when I envision the collective liberation of everyone celebrating whatever holiday whenever they wish, or no holiday at all!"

It's pretty hard to see how your comment wouldn't be a direct attack on what the first person holds most dear.

You might argue--but it would take an argument--that the oppression of the Christmas Expectation causes more suffering than Christmas Unity brings joy, or that no amount of oppression is worth it in the pursuit of joy, or that the few liberated people who don't celebrate Christmas will be unobtrusive so that nobody will lose their feeling of unity, or whatever. But you couldn't just state that it's an unadulterated awesomeness that everyone should want to be behind.

Additionally, when you note that people often feel some of the strongest bonds to groups they didn't choose (e.g. national origin, family, etc.), it's worth asking what exactly one is proposing to do away with, to what extent, and whether it's liable to cause liberation and healing or aimlessness and despondency.