World Cup Debate - Round Robin: Gender neutrality in elementary and preschools

To start, my opponent argues my claims relating to differences between the male and female brain are wrong, as development is still influenced by teaching, and that his side would more effectively deal with people who are outside the typical gender spectrum. I respectfully disagree. In citation 24, which my opponent uses to argue that teaching practices and cultural background affect development, there is no mention of the effect of teaching - rather, the source argues that development is shaped in the context of experiences within the culture the person is in. Given that I have already established through my 4th and 5th citations in round 3 that test results are remarkably consistent among different cultures, it can be safely said that the impact of teachers isn't nearly as big a deal as my opponent makes it out to be. My opponent seems to agree teachers should teach students differently based on how they learn. Per my opponent's own source (source 6), some teachers argue that, in general, they need to teach students of different genders differently because in their experience they learn differently. This is backed up by my source 5 in R3, it is noted that boys and girls, in general have different learning styles. Ergo, teachers should have the ability to teach broadly based on sex, and specifically on an individual level. Teachers deserve the ability to teach students to their full potential, not be constricted and to disregard useful techniques. As a side note, in all three rounds where he uses it my opponent's arguments related to genderless people should be completely disregarded. His source (15) for this topic says nothing about people who are actually born genderless, but instead people have been raised by their parents as genderless. Clearly, the two are not the same. My opponent tries to refute my arguments related to the desire of the child to belong, but I think he misunderstands my argument here. I am arguing that, by restricting the ability of teachers and schools to define people by either biological sex or gender, those students will have less of an ability to define themselves, because the school would not recognize them in that regard. In other words, students may well be able to choose what toys to play with or what gender they associate with, but will the school recognize or notice their choice? No. My opponent attempts to refute my arguments related to adolescents by arguing they won't be affected. This is not the case - in general, puberty begins around 10-11 in girls and 11-12 in boys. [1] Most fifth graders are 10-11 years old, so at the very most girls would be affected. [2] My opponent completely disregards students who have had to repeat a grade, who make up a fairly large population in some areas, such as Texas, where 1 in 10 fifth graders have to repeat their grade. [3] Even if we assume the California numbers are lower, it is still far more than many of the obscure gender identities my opponent has brought up, like 'boi' and 'womyn' - especially among schoolchildren, 99% of which have no clue what those are. My opponent once again coalesces sex and gender identity by arguing that, for example, sex-segregated bathrooms are discriminatory to people with unorthodox gender identities. However, sex segregated bathrooms are based on biological sex - not gender identity. Ergo, they aren't discriminating against anyone. My opponent also claims schools that recognize sex/gender roles prevent people from pursuing a gender identity. However, according to his second source, gender identity is innate, not pursued or developed. My opponent attempts to refute my issues with banning use of personal pronouns by teachers by arguing there are other words they can use, such as the word 'they'. However, the word 'they' is considered improper in formal English. [4] Why should English teachers be required to teach improper English? My opponent argues the case of David Reimer is an example of why gender neutrality is needed. I disagree. His was long used as an example of how gender neutrality is great and gender roles are learned, until everyone found out Reimer wasn't happy and it didn't work. [9] My point here was that it is wrong to force someone to deny their own sex, and that gender roles aren't really learned. Gender-neutral schools would require teachers and schools pretend that gender or sex don't exist, which would indeed harm these students who are developing. My opponent tries to downplay the concern with bathrooms, and argues I should give examples of elementary schoolgirls being victimized in the bathroom. Well, let's think about this for a second. Older males would be using the same bathrooms as young girls. Boys and girls on the edge of (or during) puberty would be sharing bathrooms. Cameras are widely available, easily used, and easily concealed. Anyone else see the potential problems here? Next, my opponent takes issue with me arguing unisex bathrooms can be installed without removing sex-segregated ones. I don't believe that does, because it isn't a new argument - it just a refutation of my opponent's claim that removing sex-segregated bathrooms and replacing them with unisex ones is the only way to not discriminate against unorthodox gender identities. He also argues people who use the bathrooms might be regarded as weird. So? Many kids think people who like chemistry are weird. Should we ban chemistry? Many kids think athletes are weird. Should we ban sports? The fact of matter is opinion doesn't matter here. People would be made uncomfortable or even harmed by unisex bathrooms and that makes one of the key pillars of his case refuted. My opponent also argues history won't be whitewashed because teachers will be able to present historical figures as belonging to a certain sex or gender. What? If the point of gender neutrality to ensure schools have no sign of gender or sex, how on earth are teachers allowed to talk about sex or gender? And as to teachers, this would undoubtedly restrict them. Have you ever tried to write a full paper on women's history without using third-person personal pronouns? No? Now try making an entire curriculum without using them, and then have to speak about it. Also, he argues students can self-identify as whatever they want. He neglects the crux of my point, that their identification won't be recognized by their superiors (teachers and school officials). He also argues the fact girls outperform boys in school and outnumber them in college across 30 different countries is proof of gender discrimination. This is nonsense - the supposed cultural norm is that men work, girls stay at home. If there is indeed discrimination in school, it would be proven by showing girls do worse in school and attend college in far lesser numbers than men, especially in cultures that reinforce that view. His final points are a bit odd. Sources from both of us have established gender identity if innate, not influenced by others, so his concerns here are null, plus I've already proven his source does not support his claims regarding genderless people. I still maintain no five-year old has any idea what 'genderqueer' means. To conclude: I've established gender-neutral schools would do more harm than good, and thus should not be implemented. My opponent has tried to address these concerns, but hasn't been able to debunk any of them. Gender-neutral schools would restrict both students and teachers, and lead to few, if any, real benefits. As such the resolution is refuted, and I strongly urge a vote for Con. References: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.dallasnews.com... 4. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . https://en.wikipedia.org...