Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

First my opponent says that they do not mean banning in the sense I brought up. I would counter this by asking, what alternate definition of banning would you use. And can they really claim not mean ban in the classical sense and then go onto say "You can"t change your age, you shouldn't be able to change your gender" or "To accept them would be to accept mental illness? " Because those statements seem like they mean ban in the sense that most people use. After this my opponent brings up there first argument, that transgenderism is mental disease called gender dysphoria. Now this isn't strictly true. Gender dysphoria is the distress a transgender person feels because they are transgender. It is not the cause of them feeling they are the the other gender, it is an effect of this. Now I will combine my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing. This thing is, changing society. Now my opponent says "To fully do it you would have to change society as we know it. " Now I disagree. The only example of this my opponent brings up is pronouns. Their first argument is that nobody asks other peoples pronouns. Now yes this is true but, transgender people can, and do, just correct people and have them use the correct pronouns. My opponents second argument on this point is that gender neutral pronouns wouldn't work. His first example of this is, "Them is sleeping; isn't English. " And they are correct, but him is sleeping isn't correct either. They are sleeping is correct. Now yes they is usually used in the plural sense, but people use it as a singular all the time, and that is a slight change. Now my opponent also argues that languages that assign words a gender would have to change. Now this is a ridicules claim. The word "crayon" means pencil in french. When you say the pencil you say "le crayon. " You use the word "le" because "crayon" is masculine. This would not have to change because the word "crayon" cannot be transgender because it is incapable of self thought. My opponent alludes to the idea that people would demand gender neutral pronouns be used in languages like French, or Spanish, or other gendered languages. Now I have three responses to this. The first is, is there any evidence to suggest this would happen? Because if there isn't then do we really need to be talking about this? Second, whoever decides these things for that language, in France they have a government agency, can just say no and not change the language. And finally, if the majority of people who speak a language want it to change, they can just start speaking that way, and if he country is democratic and has an agency that determines correct language, than they should bend to the will of the people. My opponents final point is that if you can't change your age, why should you be able to change your gender. Comparing these two things is rather odd, because age is the measure of time sense your birth, and gender is a purely social construct that identifies what classification you feel you fit into. Besides regulating age is important because doing certain things at too young of an age can seriously mess up your growth. But drinking alcohol while being the gender "boy" does not have any more health affects than drinking alcohol while being the gender "girl" or any other gender for that matter. Age and gender are very different things and thus the comparison is no real reason not to "allow" transgenderism. Now opponent says one final thing "I encourage those with gender dysphoria to seek treatment. " Now this contradicts most of my opponents case, because treatments for gender dysphoria are, transitioning to the gender you feel you are, psychotherapy tailored to talking about your gender and if you should transition, and hormones, that help with your transition. In conclusion, transgenderism is different from gender dysphoria, and not banning would have little to no impact on society. So what this means is that there is no reason to "ban", in any sense of the word, transgederism.