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

I hope that this is an enjoyable debate for both sides! On the surface, gender neutrality in schools might sound like a great idea. After all, who doesn't like equality and fairness? I'm sure that most of us try to treat people equally and would love to see a world where everyone is judged by their actions, not by who they are. However, I believe this policy would be detrimental to public school students, and will demonstrate why in this debate. To begin, one of the biggest problems with this proposed policy is that, while men and women are equal, they are not exactly the same. The brains of males and females are wired differently, so to speak. To give some examples of this, a study of 1,000 adolescents found "that male brains had more connections within hemispheres, whereas female brains were more connected between hemispheres. The results, which apply to the population as a whole, suggest that male brains may be optimized for motor skills, and female brains may be optimized for combining analytical and intuitive thinking". [1] Other studies have found differences in men and women, ranging from women having better memory and cognition skills to men having better motor and spatial skills,[1] and that men are better at some tasks than women, and women are better at some tasks than men. [2] While advocates of gender neutrality might argue that these differences are due entirely to social norms, this is simply not the case. These differences are simply part of the brain: the brain connections between sexes vary in such a way that it is clear that men and women, as a whole, just aren't exactly the same. [3] To pretend like this science doesn't exist just to pursue a political agenda of gender neutrality just doesn't make sense. Aside from the science, however, a major issue with the proposed policy is that children desire to belong - they want to be approved by their peer group. Some people with first-hand experience in applying gender neutrality to their children's lives have found this out. One woman, Candy, raised her son Henry gender-neutral for the first five years of his life. Over this time, he preferred female toys over male toys. It just so happens his 'peer group' at the time was his two older sisters, which most likely explains why he didn't get angry when he had to adjust to male clothes and the like. [4] Another couple who raised their son Sasha as female for the first five years of his life, under the pretenses of gender neutrality, actually refused to actually follow gender-neutrality by not letting him wear masculine shirts or play with Barbie dolls. In fact, they insisted on dressing him in pink with flowery shirts and having ruffles on his school uniform. [4] This is a major problem with gender neutrality - for many, this isn't designed to truly let their kids choose what they want, but instead to force them away from being traditionally male or female, as if it is wrong for kids to act like the vast majority of their gender does. The goal isn't to truly liberate people, but instead to redefine gender for everyone. As children develop, they seek belonging. Adolescents seek out friends who are similar to themselves - those who share similar hobbies, academic traits, and moral/political views. [5] More importantly, adolescents seek to develop an identity. [5] By pretending like gender and gender differences don't exist in the one place where they will develop most of their friendships, school, these developing persons are robbed of their identity. Gender-neutrality advocates might insist they are liberating people to be free to choose themselves, but by robbing children of perhaps the most defining individual - gender - they are restricting them. To frame this in a more left-minded perspective, how is a transsexual individual supposed to know he or she is transgendered, without having a gender to realize they don't conform to? Gender norms don't oppress, but instead liberate people to recognize who they are. They act as a measuring stick, one that individuals can use to distinguish themselves from others in their gender. Girlhood is not singular or generic (there are girly-girls, tomboys, and everything in between) and manhood is not singular or generic (there are jocks, nerds, and everything in between). There is room on both sides and everywhere in between, and this helps people coalesce around and become friends with those they are similar to. Forced gender neutrality robs them of this ability to recognize and compare themselves to others. By pretending everyone is exactly the same, we act like nobody is different. Elise Claeson, a former equality expert with the Swedish Confederation of Professions,[6] agrees - she notes that children discover their gender very early, and that "To then go in saying that you should be a neuter, a "hen", is no good. It makes kids confused". [7] She notes that "[gender] does not limit children; it makes them confident about their identity…. Children ought to be allowed to mature slowly and naturally. As adults we can choose to expand and change our gender identities". [8]If you still aren't convinced that gender neutrality isn't all it is cracked up to be, I present to you the case of David Reimer. Reimer was born male, but lost his genitalia when he was 7 months old after a botched circumcision. On advice from psychologist John Money, who believed gender roles were taught and could be changed based on how you rear your child, the family opted to raise him as a girl. However, despite being force-fed female hormones and female habits, he simply did not identify as female and became suicidally depressed. He forced the issue with his parents, and eventually transitioned back to being male. Despite marrying a woman and having a family, however, David still dealt with the issues of his childhood and committed suicide at the age of 38. [9] I'm not suggesting that gender neutrality would lead to millions of David Reimers. However, it is very clear that gender roles are, for the most part, not learned, and to mess with nature can lead to terrible consequences. This leads to the crux of the issue: gender identity is an adult issue, not something any preschooler is going to get. Men and women face different issues, and pretending gender doesn't exist until sixth grade (or whatever arbitrary grade is chosen) only delays development and recognition of it. Is it really appropriate to have unisex bathrooms just as adolescents are entering puberty? Is it truly appropriate not to teach children about strong male and female role models, or those women who fought so successfully for the right to vote or own property? And, more importantly, if gender-neutrality is so great, why draw an arbitrary line in the fifth grade, and if gender-neutrality is so liberating, why do we need to ever have children thrust back into the unfree confines of gender roles? I look forward to the next round, where I will rebut my opponent's case. References:1. . http://www.scientificamerican.com...2. . http://www.independent.co.uk...3. . http://www.theatlantic.com...4. . http://www.christianpost.com...5. . http://www.princeton.edu...6. . http://www.minnpost.com...7. . http://www.dn.se...8. . http://www.minnpost.com...9. . https://en.wikipedia.org...