Combine 'womens' and 'mens' departments from clothing stores - they're sexist and discriminatory

I'm going to start with a brief overview of the opponent main thesis so as to dispell the notion that the department stores are neither 'sexist' or 'prejudiced' by splitting their store into men's and women's section. Following that, I will defend my arguments. Thesis OverviewThe opponent's entire argument rests on the idea that when a department store splits it's sections into men's and women's (to be denoted as "section splitting" in the future) it is engaging in a sexist and prejudicial activity. Prejudice is defined as "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". Sexism is a prejudice that relates specifically to sex. In order for "section splitting" to be prejudicial and, thus, sexist -- one would have to effectively argue that sections are split without reason. This is clearly not the case, for the reasons I have already provided. (Different sizes, different cuts, common dressing conventions, and economically beneficial.) The opponent is attempting to argue that all of these reasons are fundementally flawed, simply because they do not reflect a reality the opponent would prefer. Personally, I fully support the movement largely led by the LGBT supporting community to increase awareness of gender issues, but that movement is outside the scope of this debate. We are not arguing over whether "society should recognize that classifying products/services/etc. by sex is wrong", but rather whether "department stores engaging in section splitting is prejudicial." What we are concerned with in this debate is whether a department store ought to be obligated to split its sections. I will, again, rehash my arguments so that it is abundantly clear that department stores have good reasons for section splitting, which in turn proves that their behavior is not prejudicial or sexist. In doing so, I will have effectively denied the resolution.1. Separation for ease of shopping. Here the opponent agrees that ease of shopping is important, but then breaks off into a tangent claiming that it is wrong that we see compartmentization of clothing as the norm. Again, the opponent is arguing outside the scope of the resolution. Whether or not it is "wrong" that a particular gender prefers clothes made for that gender doesn't matter. Rather, it is an easily confirmable fact that men do prefer to wear men's clothing and women to prefer to wear women's clothing. (Take a walk around any mall and look around. Most men will be wearing clothes marketed toward men and most women will be wearing clothes marketed toward women. And by 'most' I mean "virtually all".) Because stores recognize that genders generally prefer to wear clothes marketed toward their specific gender, stores split sections so as the make the shopping experience easier. It would be a foolish business practice to combine the two, as it would create a more frustrating experience. The opponent argues that clothing stores should look more like supermarkets, but fails to realize that a supermarket also separates its products by type. The meat is in one section, veggies in another, cheese in another, etc. If Walmart were to suddenly shift to simply intermixing all their items into one large section, it would be very difficult to find what you need. The same applies to clothing stores, though to a lesser extend.In summary, because genders prefer clothing of their own gender (whether right or wrong), it is a good business practice to separate the two into sections. 2. Men and women do not have commonly known universal sizes.Here the opponent does not actually refute my point, but instead tries to downplay the consequences of it, claiming that it is not "rocket science".It is, however, a nuisance. Labels do include different sizes by country because this is profitable. Rather than print 17 different tags dependent upon which country will be receiving the item, they include all the countries on one tag. Then a customer simply finds their country on the tag (it's generally in the same place every time) and they know their size. While I can admit that a Hollister medium fits differently than a Chaps medium, they are generally similar. A women's medium, however, is very different from a men's medium. What's more important than size, however, is cut (as I mentioned). Women's shirts typically have extra room in the front to support breasts, just as women's jeans often lack the extra room in front needed by men. This goes to show that there is a very practical reason, one based upon experience, for splitting sections. If you were to combine sections, you would not only need to add to the label a size, but also whether the garment has "room for breasts" or "room for male genitals". This just confuses the situation and makes life more difficult for the customer. In the case of a split section, a man can look through jeans without having to look at the tag of every pair just to make sure the jeans won't crush his valuables. With a combined section, this would be an issue. In summary, because of the fundemental size differences and cut differences in men's and women's clothing, it is easier for the customer to have split sections. 3. A business should behave in such a manner to gain the most profit, legally. I don't think the opponent understood this argument completely. I'm not implying that it would be illegal to combine sections, but rather that a business should implement whichever selling strategy is most profitable to the business, provided that this practice is legal. Because I have demonstrated that it is beneficial to clothing stores to split section, it is the practice the business should engage in. The opponent then invalidates his/her position by admitting to arguing outside the scope. They claim, "this whole debate is about 'gender interpretation' of clothes...". This simply isn't true, as a cursory glance at the resolution would suggest. In fact, we are arguing whether it is prejudicial and sexist for clothing stores to split clothing sections. I am not arguing that 'gender interpretation' should or should not be eliminated because that is not the main issue of the debate. Rather, I'm arguing the actual resolution. If the opponent wanted a different debate, they should have picked a different resolution. Additionally, the opponent implies that mixing sections gives customers a "greater choice." While this is marginally true, this is not a choice most customers want. Most men do not want to have to wade through women's clothing and read every tag to make sure it will support their genitals. Most men are not interested in wearing panties, blouses, dresses or bras. However, for those men who do want to wear those types of clothes, they still have the choice. They simply have to walk a hundred feet or so to the other side of the store and look through those sections. The effort needed is absolutely minimal, a fact with department stores understand. So long as we continue to live in a society where genders prefer to wear clothing typically marketed toward their gender, it is in the best interest of stores to split sections. For those who wish to wear clothing stereotypical of the opposite gender, they need only walk to the other section. Closing RemarksI have demonstrated that department stores have valid reasons for splitting sections. As such, their actions cannot be considered prejudicial and, by extension, are not sexist. I have effectively denied the resolution. The opponent is sidetracked on a narrative supporting a different resolution. We are not concerned with a hypothetical world where gender interpretations don't exist, but instead the real world where they do.