> Both sides have an unwarranted belief in a strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But new pronouns would not automatically lead to greater acceptance of n

> Both sides have an unwarranted belief in a strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But new pronouns would not automatically lead to greater acceptance of non-binary people This gets the causation backwards. People started to accept non-binary identities, which led them to invent new pronouns as a solution to the problem of "what should I call this person?" > Typically, these are people who are biologically male or female and have not undergone any gender reassignment surgery or hormonal treatment I'm not sure what this has to do with the point being made, or why the author felt it was so important as to mention it twice, but for accuracy's sake, I'll point out that about half (49%) of non-binary people in the U.S. want hormone treatment. As of 2015, most of those who want it lack access to it, but it seems kind of unfair to characterize non-binary people's transitions as typically non-medical when that's only (sort-of) true because our medical system makes it difficult for them to get transition-related care. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS... pg. 99