so... does the "don't use a FC" crowd have issues with much of manned aircraft using them?
The debate was lively in airliner design in the 1980s. When the Airbus A320 first was introduced, Boeing publicly mocked the "computer" flying, not real pilots. Boeing said they would never design an aircraft with "computers between the pilot and the aircraft." Well, not only did they do that, they did it very poorly with almost no redundancy. The Boeing B737 Max was designed with aerodynamic stabilization, Boeing hid some of the design from the airlines and hence from pilots, with no practical way to disable it. The results were catastrophic. As an Airbus pilot (A320, A330, A350), I can tell you that Airbus gave full authority to the pilots, and yet "normal law" still created an extremely stable platform for the pilots.
At the airline I work for, we call the "anti-flight-controller" pilots "Boeing snobs" - not because the B777, B787 etc. don't have fly by wire - but because they bought into the original Boeing lie that pilots using computers to fly isn't really flying. Of course, when we Airbus pilots are given grief from the Boeing snobs, we simply point to the two B737 Max crashes and point out that computers that could not be overridden are what did the dirt-dive, and Airbus has never designed something so stupid.
As for learning to fly with fly by wire and flight stabilization, most modern aircraft that use it, are designed by human factor experts and they fly naturally, as a pilot expects - and no, you don't need to fly a J3 cub with nothing by air over the control surfaces to know how to fly a B777 - AN AIRPLANE IS AN AIRPLANE, FC or no FC.