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

Again, thank you to Con for his arguments in this debate. It's been a pleasure being able to discuss this issue in such detail. I'll rebut and conclude.Con begins this round by saying I'm conflating gender and sex in my policy. This is not the case. The problem is that people use sex distinctions to justify placing someone as a default gender. The practice of assigning an identity even if it's meant to be just a physical identity is also, in part, an attempt to establish gender identity. I actually did establish a harm in making a sexual binary as well (genderless and genderqueer are not necessarily either male or female physically), but there is something wrong with using that binary as a basis for gender identity, which is the main problem.He tries to justify why this distinction should exist, saying that segregated bathrooms keep girls safe. This might be true for later ages, but I'd like to see evidence that girls in elementary school are victimized by having unisex bathrooms. The Amnesty International link doesn't establish this. However, the point generally doesn't make sense. Bathrooms have stalls, which effectively separate individuals, providing appropriate privacy and effective safety. I have a hard time understanding how either is lost in a unisex bathroom. Anyone who wants to victimize children doesn't care much about boundaries, and they won't be deterred by the door saying “girls” or “boys.”Con argues that we can just force schools to have a certain number of unisex bathrooms. Couple of issues here. First, this isn't his advocacy, as it's coming out in R3. It's another possible option, but it doesn't play a role in this debate. Second, it's ineffective. Students who go to these restrooms will be viewed as different or weird. Many students will still feel uncomfortable going for this reason, and therefore feel pressured to conform.Con says that historical figures would have to be addressed differently, and he's partially right, though he overstates the effect. To use his example, I could say “Susan B. Anthony was an influential person who secured rights for women in the U.S.” The words “male” and “female” aren't taboo, and I see no whitewashing. I can even establish that Anthony was of the female sex (I wouldn't want to assume her gender). This is yet another example of Con misunderstanding my case; teachers aren't allowed to present role models as models for a specific sex or gender, but they can still present them as what they are. But this is all besides the point: all people should identify with Susan B. Anthony for seeking voting rights for an oppressed portion of the population. Why is it so bad thing to depict Anthony as a role model to everyone rather than just one for women? He assumes that this would weaken the system, but never states how a system that empowers more broadly is inherently worse, nor does he explain why a gender role model is beneficial when these role models pressure them to hide their gender identity in order to conform to the standard they set.He mentions “liberating” teachers, but never says why teachers should be allowed to continue to inculcate their students with biased viewpoints. Teachers aren't free to discuss discriminatory views on race or religion, they most certainly shouldn't be allowed to do so with gender.Con says that he's got the better sources on altered behavior through establishing gender roles. He only looks at one of my citations for this. Voters can feel free to peruse my links (5-14, 18-22), which address the issue of how established gender roles affect behavior, often with primary evidence. Con's [3] just says that some aspects of thinking are inherent to physiology, and is still both a non sequitor and solved for better in my case, as I explained last round.Con then claims that students won't be able to identify themselves as a certain gender or sex. Nowhere in my policy is a requirement placed on students. They can self identify all they want. Teachers simply won't treat them differently as a result of that identity. Teachers can continue to call their students by their actual names. He also says that this leaves them unprepared for 6th grade, but I would say that the gender security this would afford them ensures that they will be better prepared.Con then says that girls outperform boys academically, providing three links to support that. Grant him this point, and then look back at my sources that establish the reason behind it (5, 8-12). His basis why this happens entirely assertion (Con's physiological arguments certainly don't explain it), whereas I've provided evidence. The fact that women are doing better than men today in a wide variety of subjects shows, in part, how both men and women have been subconsciously affected by the usual teaching styles. Depending on who those teaching styles favor, math scores might be male-dominated or female-dominated, and perhaps more recently the bias has shifted towards women due to this same gender skew. The only reason he provides for why gender bias isn't to blame is that it's happening in 30 different countries, but every single one of those countries has the same problems with gender binaries. They may not be teaching the same way, but they're all subconsciously pressuring their students to learn differently, and thus have similar outcomes.He says that ignoring gender and sex will just prevent them from maximizing their potential, but this is a baseless assertion.Lastly, Con's responses on minority groups are overly dismissive, as these are the largest impacts to my case. Genderless people do exist – they're called neutrois.[29] I gave an example.[15] He doesn't address the fact that they're often forced into a gender role. His own example of Reimer was someone who was forced into a gender role physically and mentally, which led to suicide. He says that GID is accommodated in schools, which doesn't address my point. Whether accommodations exist or not doesn't change the fact that they feel like irregular outsiders in a system that promotes a gender binary. His response to genderqueer is just that these ideas don't exist in preschool. First off, they do. I've provided several examples (including the link he dismissed on genderless) of people who fit into these categories, and several of his examples from R2 fit too. Second, the fact that they might not know these words doesn't mean they can't identify with them. It's not up to my opponent to decide when kids start to establish their gender identity, and the data I've presented shows that it starts early and the effects last a lifetime.ConclusionThroughout this debate, Con has tried to present benefits of the current system and concerns involved in a gender neutral one. I have yet to see any evidence that the establishment of gender roles is responsible for any benefit to students. Many of the points he's made against my case have been mischaracterizations. Even when they are applicable, he hasn't shown any substantial or even likely harm. Changes in teaching styles aren't inherently bad, especially if those changes lead to a less biased system. Con has conceded that the current system elevates one gender over another in numerous areas of study, and that strategies that force kids to take a side in the gender binary are deeply mentally scarred.Con has presented nothing but outcomes and assumed the reasons behind them. At best, this means he's presented uncertain harms with unknown impacts, at worst, each of these just supercharge my case by showcasing just how bad the current system is. He's banking on harms to students, but even if voters are buying all of his points here, the tremendous long term psychological impacts that I've elucidated are far more potent. He even provided me with the strongest possible support – an instance of suicide. Uncertain effects on education efficacy are never going to outweigh known deaths and trauma.Vote Pro.29. http://en.wikipedia.org...