guydudeman

when there exists an incongruency between a person's body and their mind, one can either try to argue that it is a problem of the mind and the mind ought to be changed to match the body, or that it is a problem of the body and the body ought to be changed to match the mind.

you must ask yourself, which do you believe is the more fundamental element to the essence of someone's personhood? would it be the mind, i.e. their internal sense of self, or would it be the body, i.e. their external physical form? which one, if it were entirely changed beyond recognition, would effectively result in them being a different person? the same mind contained in a different body, vs. the same body containing a different mind.

please recognize the implications of prioritizing the shape of one's body over the nature of their mind, doing such would demonstrate an extremely shallow understanding of what it is that makes people who they are. their thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, ideas, hopes, dreams, regrets and all their life experiences, vs. the surface-level appearance of their physical characteristics. you've heard the saying "don't judge a book by its cover," and can understand the message it sends, no? it's not what's on the outside that matters, but what's on the inside.

please understand the gravity of advocating for someone to contort and conform their entire identity, their innermost self and personal nature, to comply with the external-most, superficial layer of themselves—rather than allowing them to alter their aesthetic and cosmetic outward presentation to better reflect how they feel and who they are on the inside.

not everyone has the privilege of being born with a body that'll produce the most appropriate hormone balance for them without medical intervention. this is a medical decision that should be up to the discretion of child in question whose life will be directly affected, rather than the uninformed opinions of pearl-clutching 3rd parties who get to remain safely divorced from the devastating consequences of the stance they advocate for.

the oxford english dictionary traces singular 'they' back to ✨1375✨, where it appears in the medieval romance william and the werewolf

also, fun fact: 'you' was originally plural before it was adopted for singular usage as well. 'you' was used as a polite singular alternative for 'thou', 'thee', and 'thy' for a few centuries, but by the 17th century it completely replaced them. this is why it feels more natural to say "you are" even when talking in reference to a single person, and "you is" doesn't sound right at all—that's a grammatical vestige of its roots as a plural 2nd-person pronoun.

besides, singular 'they' has been a regular part of common usage in the modern day for a while now:

if anyone has a problem with singular 'they', have them read this sentence, because then they might change their mind.

'have him or her read this sentence, because then he or she might change his or her mind' just doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily. it's pretty awkward and clunky in comparison, and it also isn't inclusive of those who may identify beyond or between the perceived 'binary' on the gender spectrum.

that's all, thank you for coming to my ted talk :)