You're wrong and aren't helping here.
Beforehand, zinc didn't matter for the explanation, I didn't talk about it and it's not included in most "crucial" indications for bone healing altough every recognized human nutrient is important.
Second, zinc only inhibits calcium absorption if calcium intake is very very low, while, at the same time, zinc own absorption can be inhibited by fiber, phytates and large amounts of iron (NO important competition observed or demonstrated with calcium).
Third, I could add for example that copper also competes and, in my field of knowledge, develop the subject much further. I didn't intend to write a Biology or Clinical Nutrition book. A lot of information and "heard about" only adds confusion and less practical utility.
Fourth, these issues are still not scientifically definitively closed and there are "nuances", strange sometimes. For example, low amounts of zinc are better absorbed than large ones. There are many doubts and sometimes contradictory data depending on diet, ingredients of the meals, time of meals, each person, etc. But the current consensus in textbooks is that zinc doesn't impair calcium absorption whatsoever.
Your comment about zinc and lazzily quoting "what you've heard" are poor, even negative, instead of small but solid contributions here.
Why for example didn't you make a small search instead about which form of calcium is best absorbed? Citrate? Carbonate? ....? Or just keep mouth shuted if you don't know anything about biology or nutrition and don't even bother to search and evaluate sources instead of bringing confusion about a post, for respect and consideration for the forum you are visiting? Everyone is free to speak here and doesn't need to be a scientist. But if you disagree at least know why and explain it.