In this commentary, the author defends the Multiple Grammars (MG) theory proposed by Luiz Amaral and Tom Roepe (A&R) in the present issue. Topics discussed include second language acquisition, the concept of developmental optionality, and the idea that structural decisions involve the lexical dimension. The author states that A&R's proposal is wider in scope than bidirectional optimization--multiple grammars will be available to speakers whether adults or children, monolingual or multilingual--and defends defends A&R by providing evidence to bear into this broader claim. The author concludes by maintaining that the proposal that A&R offer is simple, compelling, and difficult. Linguistic theory should model grammar in such a way that makes it possible to account for speakers; even if it involves letting go of language.