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

Thanks to TN05 for his intelligent arguments, and now I'll start in with rebuttal. He starts by telling us that males and females are inherently mentally different. I've got 2 responses: 1. This is a non sequitor. It doesn't matter if the brains of the separate sexes are hardwired for certain kinds of thinking. The reality that they are affected by teaching practices and cultural background as a whole is enough to show that they are being influenced.[24] So long as they are influenced, there is a basis for reducing that influence, no matter whether inherent aspects exist or not. 2. My case solves better for this than status quo. Nowhere in my case do I say that different teaching methods can't be used depending on how receptive each individual is to a given style. Thus, different styles can be employed for those students who have different mental learning capabilities. Con is ignoring the reality that biological characteristics don't always match the person's sex, which can affect brain development.[25, 26] Someone who is genderless can also receive slanted teaching that doesn't fit their hardwiring.[15] Right now, teachers are encouraged to homogenize sexes and ignore genders, which effectively damages these students' learning. Only in a gender neutral environment is this issue fully addressed. Con then talks about the desire to belong. There are several fundamental misunderstandings here. For one, just because the desire to belong exists doesn't mean that it has to be applied through gender. The assumption that shared sex equates to shared gender identity is problematic " it forces kids to adhere to gender norms rather than their gender identities. I've already explained the mental harms that come from this. It's better that any other sense of belonging is established than this, and since this can occur through literally any other trait (Con lists several in the next paragraph), it's entirely reasonable that it could be established in any case. For another, Con's link doesn't apply. It involves how a child is raised from birth, and specifically whether they're allowed to have a gender identity at all. These cases established a non-identity rather than allowing the children involved to establish their own. Neither of them apply to my case. Whatever the reason, kids will be able to choose the toys they play with, from barbie dolls to monster trucks. Their clothing won't be decided by the school, so that's non-issue. They will have a wide pallet of colors available to them, rather than being directed to blue or pink. So much as Con asserts that "this isn't designed to truly let their kids choose what they want," that is exactly what this system does. He continues this line of reasoning into his next paragraph, talking about how adolescents (who aren't affected by this policy " hence the concern about them having unisex bathrooms as they enter puberty is irrelevant as well) are going to be harmed. This, again, ignores the fact that a gender neutral system such as that which I have proposed is meant to allow each student to develop a personal gender identity. They aren't robbed of it " they're allowed to pursue it in an unbiased environment. Con tries to support this with the following statement: "how is a transsexual individual supposed to know he or she is transgendered, without having a gender to realize they don't conform to?" This is the crux of the problem. Con wants to keep the gender binary when gender is a spectrum.[27] A binary doesn't liberate " it pressures kids to conform to one of two options and dismisses the others as irrelevant. Providing only two options is absurdly over-limiting. He is also assuming that kids need to be shown what a gender identity is in order to have one, when the reality is that it is independent of outside influence.[2] Con also says that girlhood and manhood are not singular or generic. This ignores the point of gender neutrality. The gender spectrum isn't between girly-girls and tomboys, jocks and nerds. These aren't gender identities. Gender identities are male, female, androgyne, bigender, boi, cisgender, cross-dresser, genderqueer, pangender, transgender, transexual, womyn, and everything under third gender.[28] Every school without gender neutral bathrooms is not accepting them. Every school that pushes boys to play with blocks, monster trucks, and use the color blue is not accepting them. Every school that tries to force gender norms of male and female on them is not accepting them. He argues that the ability to "recognize and compare themselves to others" is lost. Since when does a system that allows students to establish their own gender identity remove the capacity to recognize oneself and compare? And why should they have to compare in the first place? Con uses Elise Claeson to bolster his argument, quoting her as saying that neutral pronouns confuse children. Several responses. 1. She is responding to the Swedish system specifically, which requires the use of terms like "hen" as non-gender specific pronouns. That doesn't mean that all possible non-gender specific pronouns are confusing. Use of the terms "they," "them," "you," and "friends" aren't confusing, and neither is directly employing a student's name. 2. She doesn't do enough to explain why this is damaging. She says it's important for a gender to be confirmed, but then says that "Children out to be allowed to mature slowly and naturally." The current system doesn't allow anything of the sort, forcing kids into the gender binary. 3. I don't think it's any more confusing than telling a child to adhere to a gender role when it doesn't fit their gender identity. Con then moves to the case of David Reimer. This is probably one of the best reasons to support my case. He talks about how the parents of this child decided to stick with the gender binary, force-feeding the child female hormones and female habits. This was not just forcing a gender identity on the child, but forcing a sexual transition. The mental issues created by these acts pushed him to commit suicide, which just goes to show how dramatic the mental harms can be from being forced into this system rather than being allowed to choose one's own gender independent of one's genitalia. This isn't a case against gender neutrality, it's a case against the current system that forces kids into the male or female camps. Con argues that gender identity is an adult issue. I'd say most of my sources support the reality that gender identities can be established early and affect them later in life.[18-22] The Reimer case makes this all the more stark by showing how terrifying of an effect a forced gender identity can have. Lastly, Con asks some questions. I'll number my responses. 1) As I said earlier, unisex bathrooms for adolescents isn't a part of my plan. So this doesn't factor into it. 2) It is appropriate. Gender identity shouldn't be established by presenting kids with a binary example of what gender roles exist in society today. However, just because we're not presenting them with gendered role models doesn't mean that students can't understand the importance of everyone having the right to vote or own property. That's just absurd. 3) I drew the line at elementary schools to simplify and focus my case. I would say it would be beneficial past the fifth grade as well, but arguing every grade level seemed excessive. Since Con has decided not to take expansion of gender neutrality into later grades as his counterplan, it really makes no difference whether or not it's a part of my case. With that, I leave it to Con to rebut my case. 24. http://www.nature.com... 25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 26. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 27. https://www.genderspectrum.org... 28. http://en.wikipedia.org...