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

I thank the Contender for making his opening statement but he seems to have missed the point rather:1) Separation for ease shopping. I accept that stores have to make the shopping experience easy and quick however Supermarkets combining thousands of different products in many different categories seem to do well in this without too much trouble. In fact, some (TK Maxx for example) seem to go out of their way to maximise turnover by forcing customers to trawl through hundreds of different items hoping that if they don't find what they want, they will actually find something else that they WILL buy.You state that "it cannot be denied that men typically wear clothes from the 'mens department' and ladies wear clothes from the 'ladies section' - why is that do you think? Is it exactly because of the gender categorisation of the various garments and the fact that we are all so used to this as 'the norm' that we don't need to think outside the box? This was exactly the point of my argument!! Men and women have been compartmentized into one set of clothes each and we accept that out of habit - because it's what we're used to; the habit is what we need to change.I also fail to agree that it is beneficial for the business to separate the two. In fact, I believe the opposite is true as both Men and Women will have more choice (double in fact) to choose what they want to buy without any social or habitual prejudice forcing them to only buy half of what is available. It's like separating a food shop into two ridiculous halves where only some people would be able to shop for milk while others would be forced to have the soya alternative... It's all about consumer choice and I regret that your argument in this is fatally flawed.2) Men and Women do not have commonly known universal sizes.I accept that a woman's 'medium' is different to a men's 'medium' but you must be aware that many clothes now have international labels showing multiple sizes because, for example, a size 12 in the UK is different to a size 12 in the US. Some labels have as many as six / seven different sizes on them. Using this as a reason to separate men's and women's departments is no argument at all - in fact, it's quite ridiculous.Similarly, a size 12 in H&M is often different to a size 12 in Primark. The sizes are simply a guide anyway and most people are aware that in certain shops they have to buy a larger size wheras in others the reverse is true. Having bought clothes for my partner, I know the ladies' equivalent size of his male sizes. It's not rocket science but a new and complex system of sizing is NOT actually required - An added line on the label of the garment helping to make clear the equivalent size of the opposite sex is a simple answer. This already happens in some unisex shoes that show both male and female size information.Argument 3 - A businessshould behave in such a manner to gain the most profit, legallyI fully agree but how is this a counter-argument? Are you suggesting that to combine mens and womens departments would be illegal ? If so, I don't get it. It's more likely in fact that they are (or soon will be given the continual and increasing awareness in discrimination laws) perceived to be operating illegally if they continue to discriminate between mens and womens departmentsI have already countered your argument on size differences above so won't reiterate that but you also state that with different cuts, styles and 'gender interpretation' of clothes it would not be beneficial for a company to combine the mens and womens sections. What a load of phooey! This whole debate is about 'gender interpretation' of clothes and trying to eradicate it so it seems quite bizarre that you use that phrase as a counter argument.You seem to be implying that all men and women have similar shape because of their natural shapes - the fact of the matter is that both sexes come in all shapes and sizes. Large or tall men and women shop for clothes that THEY KNOW are suitable for them. The same is true if they are petite. People know what they look good in and what they don't. There is no confusion in this and I fail to understand how offering a greater choice would cause people to shop for longer or how that could be considered 'negative' to business.This debate has nothing to do with requiring stores to be 'overly hospitable to a minority'. It's about giving EVERYONE a fair choice and at the same time removing the prejudice and habitual compartmentization that forces men into one section and deters women from shopping outside of their 'own' department. I say 'deters' because many women are already comfortable shopping for themselves in the men's department, me included! It's the men who are getting a raw deal.Finally, there are far more men out there than you consider credible that would actually buy items of typically female clothing for themselves if there were less barriers to it. This isn't about catering for a minority as you suggest. Most men who want to do this have to buy under the cover of 'buying for my girlfriend'. You only have to ask an Assistant in one of these shops to validate that as a fact!Your aguements really don't hold up but I look forward to your comments.