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

For clarity in this final round, I will be addressing my opponent's most recent argument "line-by-line", which essentially means I will sum up the essence of a paragraph or two, in order, then rebut it/them. I believe this will make it easier for the reader to follow -- though please understand that my original arguments are indeed still intact and addressed thoroughly within my response. This debate is about affecting change and changing perceived social opinions. This is may or may not have been the opponent's original intention, but that is entirely irrelevant. The resolution clearly states that we should "combine womens and mens departments [in] clothing stores [because] they're sexist and discriminatory". In accepting this debate, it became my obligation to deny this resolution and it became my opponent's obligation to affirm this resolution. So long as I demonstrate that split sections are not sexist or discriminatory (prejudicial), I have won the debate. The opponent should consider wording the resolution to say what they mean next time. It is not my job to "read between the lines" of a resolution. I don't believe I'm arguing a semantics game here -- the resolution is clear. This debate has nothing to do with anything related to the LGBT community. It would be an injustice to say that "gender issues" have nothing to do with the LGBT community and its supporters (LGBT supporters was the terminology I used in my argument.) I myself am a member of this community and I can say from first hand experience that LGBT supporters push this issue while other groups do not. I was not claiming or implying that men who wish to wear women's clothes were gay and what I said does not even read like that. I simply made the assumption that this was an issue the LGBT community and its supporters were involved with -- something that is not prejudicial, as I have made the assumption on the basis of both reason and actual experience. Lastly, even if I was being prejudicial -- I am not a department store and I have different motivations than a department store, so the comparison isn't adequate in the first place. Fashion trends are converging. This may be true. In fact, it probably is true that many fashions once considered 'taboo' for men or women are becoming socially acceptable. However, this doesn't change the fact that in the status quo most of these "convergent trends" are not socially acceptable. As such, it is in a department store's best interest to satisfy customers living in the now rather than appealing to a possible, but not yet substantial customer base that prefers unisex clothing. In 20 years if unisex clothing is considered popular, then I would not be arguing what I am now; my argument would make no sense. But it isn't 2035, it's 2015 and we have to debate this issue in the context of 2015. One "world renowned store" introducing a unisex item does not demonstrate that social trends have changed to a degree that department stores should combine sections. (Private businesses often act in their own self-interest, which is almost always profit. If it were currently profitable to combine sections, it would already be happening.)Sizing, cuts and physical cut is entirely irrelevant. I have already addressed this, but I suppose I need to be more thorough. It is true that many women cannot fit into a "slim fitting" dress. However, there is another convenient split within womens and mens sections that solve this problem: size categories. Combining sections, however, would still require different "sub-sections" that appeal to the biological differences in men and women. There are two possibilities: a) there would be no separation by biology, leading to a difficult shopping experience or b) there would be a separate racks for "biologically men" clothes and "biologically women" clothes. (Perhaps 'physically' is the better term.) In the first scenario, the problem is obvious -- it is an inconvenience to the shoppers. In the second scenario, you end up were you originally were before, split sections based upon gender. There just isn't a reasonable solution to this problem. One might compare my opponent's premise to the idea of combining sizes. One could argue that sections of different sizes are discriminatory toward differently sized people, so we should combine all sizes. It's easy to see how this would unnecessarily complicate the issue, just as it's easy to see how combining gender sections would complicate the issue. What if a hardware store were split into 'mens' and 'womens' sections?This is not a good analogy. Splitting a hardware store in such a way makes unfounded assumption based upon stereotypes of men and women. There is no natural reason to assume that a woman wouldn't enjoying a buzzsaw or that a man wouldn't enjoy pottery. This contrasts greatly with clothing, where it is natural to assume that men need extra space in the front of their jeans and that women need extra space in the front of their shirts. It is additionally natural to assume that women have a different 'shape' than men, tending toward more curves and a different distribution of fatty tissue than have men. These assumptions are natural and reasonably because they're based upon human biology -- an easily seen and empirically true fact about the human race. It is wrong to assume that most all women enjoy gardening. It is not wrong to assume that most all women have breasts. Split sections are embarrasing to people who wander to the "wrong section". The opponent states that [a man] who wandered into the women's section to buy a skirt would feel "intimidated, foolish and embarrassed" and that this proves there exists prejudice. I cannot say and have not said that there aren't people who are prejudiced toward the idea of dressing outside of socially accepted gender norms. Those people certainly do exist. However, we are not discussing people in the store. We are discussing the store itself, which works in a self-interest to appeal to customers so as to gain profit. Many stores that fully express support of recognizing the complexities of gender issues, such as J.C. Penny, Kenneth Cole, etc. all still separate their clothing by gender. Clearly they are not doing this out of some prejudice against men or women, but instead (and again) because it is convenient to the shopper. I have plenty of gay friends that wear women's clothing. None of them feel ashamed or embarrassed in buying this clothing, likely because they wouldn't be willing to wear the clothes if they weren't willing to buy them. So the argument that the opponent is trying to construct, that the guilt felt when crossing lines to the other section is a result of existing prejudice may have merit when it comes to the opinions of people, but holds no water when it comes to the business goals of department stores.-------------------------------------Closing RemarksThe opponent fails to argue the resolution at hand, instead arguing some higher, philosophical ideal that was not stated in the resolution. I have demonstrated that clothing stores have valid reason to split sections, in that it is based upon actual experience and hold valid logical reasoning. This, in turn, shows that the actions of the clothing stores in doing this is not prejudicial and, as an extension, not sexist. I have upheld my burden of denying the resolution. As for the more philosophical side of things, I am a huge supporter of equal rights. But what the opponent is proposing isn't ultimately about equal rights. He/she wants to remove categories that make our lives easier simply because of this new, radical idea that prejudice is inherent in category. There cannot be peace if you're always finding reasons not to be peaceful.