Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

Thanks again to Pro for offering some rebuttals. Again I will look to run through those very quickly and then provide a final summary.RebuttalsThe first line is 'in response to'.The second line is 'my opponent says'.The third line is my response.So, 1:In response to:"Pro puts forth to substantiate that sexism is a problem for society, i[n] the following unsourced statement." My opponent says:"Not all claims need to have sources. Common knowledge and logic do not need to be sourced."My response:I think in the context of international debate, statements such as "divorce laws often favour women, stereotyping and assuming they can care for a child better than a man". Need some substantiation. This may be common knowledge in your culture, but not necessarily mine or anyone elses2:"Pro has not shown how, if divorce laws did favour women, it should be a terrible problem for society." "I believe it was implied that this is terrible for society." I don't see why. Most of the time it is the women who do the most for kids, even in marriage, as I have already sourced. 3: "Pro has not substantiated that divorce laws would be sexist, if they favour women."The key word here is 'favoring'. Favoring a gender simply because of the gender is sexist.But pro has done nothing to show that they have been favored because of their gender. Pro doesn't seem to understand, to be sexist the only reason for favouring a sex is their gender. Picking men to work in your lumber yard, because they can lift more, is not sexist even if only men are chosen. The men have been chosen because they can lift more, not just because they are men. Being men is just coincidental of the attribute which is actually being selected.4:" As i have already argued and sourced (1), it is common for women to retain the child after a break up because it is they who were the primary care givers during the relationship. I will also add, the younger the child is the stronger the bond with the mother due to feeding, especially breast feeding. "(2) If it were a very young child, I would understand the mother winning custody of the child. However, say it were a situation in which the child were a teen, you cannot immediately say that the mother is the best person to have custody of the child. But pro, you have not done a thing to substantiate that women are "immediately" assumed to be the best person to take custody. 5:" In the vast majority of cases then it is not descrimination and prejudice based on sex which leaves the child with the mother, but thought for the best interests of the child, founded on information and reason." My opponent does not prove how and why mothers are the best caregivers for children. He does provide an argument for why women should have custody of their children, but he completely ignores the fathers. What happens to them? I have provided sourced evidence; women are usually the main caregivers before divorce; women build a stronger bond in early childhood due to breastfeeding; homemaker women are happier than working women, and happy workers do a better job. Pro has done nothing to show fathers are completely ignored. On the contrary they have many legal avenues for recourse if a child is mistakenly given to an unfit mother.6: "He declares that this gap is caused by sexism but makes no effort to show that it is."This is clearly sexism. I do not need to source anything for that particular statement. I have a counter-question: How is it NOT sexism? I have already shown, sexism is when a choice is made exclusively on the basis of sex. It is not sexist when a choice is made on the basis of certain attributes which exist in one sex predominantly more than the other. Covered point 3. You have done nothing to show that the gap is caused by unjust or prejudicial treatment, which is the definition of descrimination, used in your definition of sexism. Picking muscley men to carry logs is not unjust or prejudicial. Its logical. 7: "He declares that the gap is "hideous" but makes no effort to describe why it is."My opponent clearly does not understand the seriousness of this. Thats not an argument.8: "Men have the capacity to be physically and mentally more productive. Their higher peak IQ affords them the top jobs, which often pay 10 fold the salary of a mere 'good' job, raising the average mens salary in completely non-linear fashion. I also argued that women are guaranteed to suffer impaired ability, at least a couple of days each month, lowering their objective worth in the workplace." I grant my opponent this.Thankyou9:"It follows then that prejudice is not necessarily the causal factor behind any wage gap."The wage gap is clearly caused by sexism. Women, just like men, are capable of doing work and supporting a family. Why should they be treated differently then men? Why can't women and men get paid the same for the same job? This is clearly sexism.Again my opponent is misunderstanding the meaning of sexism. Sexism is when the justification is only the sex. If you pick men because they have big muscles, it is the big muscles you are selecting, the sex is just coincidental. If you pick men because they are men, with no other justification, that would be sexism, but Pro has provided no example of this.10: His inclusion of African-American and Hispanic women would be indicative of racism, not sexism, so is invalid." I grant my opponent this. Thankyou11: "He doesn't source any data to show what people assume."Things that are common knowledge to do need to be sourced. I don't agree that "When people say, 'Ladies first', they assume that women are weak and unable to wait.", is common knowledge. I mean, its common knowledge that women are weak and impatient? really? I know some very strong, very patient women. Pro again lacks sources.12 : "He doesn't show how big strong men holding a door open for visibly smaller, less strong women, would be a problem for society" There is a clear difference between sexism and manners. Holding a door open for a weaker woman is of course acceptable, but treating a woman as weaker when she is not is clearly sexism. But you never said "when she is not", until now. Even so, holding a door open for a women when she is of equal size to you, is by no means necessarily sexist. It could be, i don't know.. Kindness? Friendliness? Ever had a door held open for you by a man? Ever held a door open for one? 13 "The treatment of transgender folk, even if they were a sex, can be shown to be caused by a host of other factors such as religious beliefs."Religion may be a factor, but sexism is as well. Well, you have done nothing to show that is the case.14 "Pro has yet to provide any example of sexism even existing. That is, descrimination or devaluation based on a persons sex. I am sure examples exist but he is yet to touch on any. The examples he has given are explained by men having more merit or worth, rather than descrimination or devaluation against women, merely because they are women -sexism." I provided plenty of examples of sexism. The examples of sexism I provided regarded sexism because of gender simply. No, the examples we have discussed so far have not been examples of sexism because you have never shown the decision to be based exclusively on the sex of a person. If you happen to continually select males to lift logs around, it is not just because they are male that you have selected them. You are really selecting the most muscular people, and those people just happen to be male. If the most muscular people were females, you would select them.15: "2: Pro has not provided any argument which shows sexism to be a problem for the society at-large."My argument was a little weak, I grant my opponent this. He still hasn't!16: "Pro has failed to offer any rebuttal to my argument showing that enforced "equal opportunities" and pay would be destructive to society."If anyone failed, it was my opponent. His main argument was completely irrelevant and made no sense. I have already described in great detail the relevance of my first argument. Pro has not made legitimate objections, I feel this is because of his base misunderstanding of the word "sexism"Finnally I just want to clarify the analogous argument and the meaning of sexism for my opponent:That argument showed that things with certain attributes, are better at certain things. For example tyres are chosen before steering wheels not because of an unjust prejudice towards steering wheels but because tyres do a better job in enabling movement of a car.Sexism is when a decision is made exclusively through an unjust prejudice against a sex. Picking tyres because they're tyres, is not unjust. Preferring to give women custody of a child is not unjust prejudice, but it is justified by the fact that women are usually the care-givers, with the strongest bond to the child. If it was always the woman who got the child, no matter the situation, then pro might have a point. But ofcourse it is not always the woman who gets the child; often when the father does make the strongest claim, for example if the mother is a drug addict, or does not have a stable income or cannot provide care in some other way, then it is he who gets the child, and rightly so.Sadly I have no time or space for a summary! I will provide summary in the final round.Thankyou