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

Due to character limitations I will be only be refuting his opening arguments. To begin, my opponent defines 'sex' and 'gender. I do not object to these definitions, but I believe he is conflating them. He is proposing to eliminate gender and sex distinctions in school - to pretend like they don't exist until fifth grade. However, his arguments almost entirely focus on gender identity, not sex. In other words, he's explained why he views default gender as wrong, but never explained why sex distinction is wrong, and why we should pretend it doesn't exist. To quote my opponent verbatim:"this policy will require that public schools avoid distinguishing between sex or gender on school grounds. This will manifest in requiring that all bathrooms on school grounds be made unisex, that schools not reinforce gender stereotypes by directing their color choices, toy uses, or behavior in the classroom. These will still be available to students, but at their selection. Any and all role models presented are not depicted as specific to a given gender or sex. Teachers will be told to avoid the use of gender-specific pronouns. Emotionally, boys and girls would be handled the same. "Even if we take his word that gender distinction is wrong, he has not given valid reasons for sex distinction, and it is made very clear that his policy applies to both gender and sex, and because the two are different, they don't have the same reasons to be banned. In fact, there are a number of legitimate reasons to recognize sex in schools. Amnesty International, hardly a heteroconformative rag, supports segregated bathrooms as a measure to keep girls safe. [1] My opponent argues sex-segregated bathrooms are wrong because some transsexuals might be uncomfortable in them. Well, what about the many people that are uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms - why does their voice not matter? The solution here is not to force all bathrooms to be unisex, but to instead require each to school to have a certain number of unisex bathrooms. [2] This would address the concerns of everyone without causing anyone to be uncomfortable. Similarly, his policy would require historical figures be addressed as if they have no sex or gender. This measure is absurd, as it would mean that teachers would have to revise history. For example, teachers would have to teach that Susan B. Anthony was a key person (not a woman) in securing rights for 50% of the population (who they cannot even define in school or explain why their rights were denied). How would you be able to explain why women had no rights if you can't define women or men, or explain the historical bias towards men? The entire women's rights movement would be effectively whitewashed to remove anything to relating to who they were made of (mostly women), who they sought rights for (women), and why they sought rights for them (because denying rights to 50% of the population solely due to gender is wrong). That would be like talking about Martin Luther King Jr but never mentioning he was black or that it was black people who were oppressed! My opponent's policy would clearly weaken the education system and restrict the ability of teachers to teach (in fact, teachers wouldn't even be able to refer to students with personal pronouns, even if the student wants them to), which is something America simply cannot afford at this point. We need to liberate our teachers to talk about the tough issues, not have them pretend like they don't exist. My opponent asserts teachers are altering the behavior of students by treating them with basic gender roles. However, his source (citation three) to support this claim does not actually support it - the only person supporting this claim in the source is the director of a gender-neutral Swedish preschool, hardly an unbiased source on the topic. In comparison, I have established through unbiased research studies that males and females are wired differently in the brain and, in general, are better at different things. [3] I'll leave it up to the voters to decide which is better. Next, my opponent asserts that recognizing gender and sex in school restricts freedom, as it "preassures them to adhere to societal norms that are viewed as most acceptable rather than allowing them to define their identity themselves". Even if we take his word for it here, his suggested policy would restrict the rights of students to define themselves even more. How is this the case? By removing any and all references to sex or gender, and requiring teachers to ignore sex and gender, the vast majority of students who identify with their birth sex and its according gender role would be unable to define themselves in school. Teachers would be unable to call them by their chosen name, they wouldn't be able to learn specifically about role models of their sex or gender. Simply put, students wouldn't learn about sex or gender and how it applies to them - they'd simply be forced into it all of a sudden in sixth grade, and unprepared for it to boot. Next, my opponent argues gender roles restrict education, and that, in particular, stereotypes relating to females and math restrict the ability of girls to learn math. However, girls outperform boys in every subject, including math, at every stage of development - including elementary school. [4][5] This is attributed to differences in study patterns between boys and girls, with girls tending to focus on mastering material, while boys tend to focus on acing tests. These differences have been observed in more than 30 countries, each of which presumably has its own culture, meaning they likely are caused from natural differences than learned differences. [5] This utterly destroys my opponent's point here, as the fact of the matter is females are not disadvantaged under the current system. In fact, by requiring teachers to ignore gender and sex, teachers would be unable to teach male or female students in a way that can allow them to maximize their potential. My opponent then argues that gender differences must be removed from school, as it prevents students from establishing their own identity and restricts them in later life. I've already refuted the school argument, but in regards to identity and career, women outnumber men in almost all courses in college, including law and medicine, and more women attend college than men. [6] This runs contrary to the supposed cultural norm of women being homemakers and men being workers, thus we can say that current policies don't seem to enforce that idea. Finally, my opponent argues the current system disadvantages some minority groups. He lists genderless people, but his source is an article about parents who raise their kids as genderless, not genderless people. He notes people with GID are at a disadvantage as they identify with the opposite of their birth gender, but these people are already accommodated in schools. He notes that genderqueer people are at a disadvantage, but I'd like to find an example of a preschooler who even knows what that means, let alone identifies as it. These are all issues that come up in later adolescence, not preschool, and my opponent's policy doesn't apply to the former. With that, I hand the ball back to Pro. References:1. . http://www.amnesty.org...2. . http://www.oregonlive.com...3. . http://www.scientificamerican.com...4. . http://www.voanews.com...5. . http://time.com...6. . http://www.independent.co.uk...