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

The fact remains that most of my points are indeed relative to the resolution. Section splitting in clothes shops is widely the norm at present because, and I have to agree with my opponent here, men do generally wear clothes associated with men and vice versa. I however maintain that a lot of women are comfortable shopping for themselves in the men's department and that this is not reciprocated by men. However, the fact that this occurs now because "that's how it is" is not a reasonable argument to carry on doing it! This debate is about effecting change and changing perceived social opinions and clearly my opponent is one of those who considers that any change in behaviour has to be a bad thing regardless of the reasoning or rationale behind it. In fact this debate has nothing to do with anything related to the LGBT community and I am not surprised that my opponent has assumed this to be fundamental to the resolution. By his own reasoning 'prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience'. Since my opponent has quoted this, I find it bizarre that he seemingly has a preconceived opinion that this is a debate from someone related to the LGBT community - that in itself is prejudiced as I had provided no reason for his assumption and, I dare say, it was not based on his actual experience either ! At this point - it should be cased closed as my opponent has made the point quite clear by demostration of his thinking that for a man to wear women's clothes, he MUST be part of the LGBT community. Fortunately this is utter hogwash but I thank him for making the point so succinctly and for seemingly scoring a rather large own goal by demonstrating exactly the point that proves the whole issue of section splitting IS both prejudicial and sexist. Whilst stores may recognise that genders seem to prefer wearing clothes designed for their specific gender, stores are aware that fashion is converging. Men now wear skinny jeans. Some coats are now marketed as 'unisex' as the style, cut and colour are suitable for both genders. Women have had 'boyfriend cut' clothes (shirts, jackets and jeans) for several years. Should the convergence continue (and I suspect that it will), would my opponent still consider it 'foolish' business practice to combine the two departments? Selfridges in London last year marketed a range of men's tights. They had no problem with stocking them (no pun intended) in both mens and womens departments as they didn't know where customers might look. I guess in that case, the resolution had already been passed by this World renowned store. So, as time goes on and fashions converge for men and women, my opponent still believes that combining the two departments would prove to be either a foolish business practice OR a much more frustrating experience ? The sizing, cuts and physical differences in clothes are wholly irrelevant - a low cut slim fitting dress wouldn't suit all women let alone most men! It doesn't stop the manufacturers from making the dress though does it ? Let's also remember that many designers ARE already catwalking men in dresses, skirts, tights and heels. It might not have hit the high street just yet but it almost certainly will and passing the resolution will simply catalyse the general acceptance of these converging styles reshaping fashion as we know it overnight. Supermarkets do indeed categorise their stores by product type but perhaps a better analogy would be the hardware store: If that were split into 'Mens' and 'Womens', the mens section might contain power tools, nails, screws, electrical and plumbing. The female section might contain gardening, lighting, decor and paint. It is equally true that a man could wander into the women's section to buy paint but the sheer fact that each gender is sectionalised in this way can only be considered as sexist and this is absolutely no different to the clothes shop model. The Equal Rights Act would jump on this like a ton of bricks but not so in a clothes store ? Similarly, my opponent states that removing the gender split in clothes shops would create a more frustrating experience. Has he never been frustrated in a supermarket or hardware store? The resolution however was not about how frustrating combining mens and womens departments might or might not make the shopping experience - it is about the sexist and prejudicial restriction that effectively prevents men, in particular, from feeling they cannot freely browse, try or buy clothes from the women's section for themselves without somebody, my opponent included, assuming that they must be from the LGBT community or just 'a bit weird'. Should the resolution be passed, there is nothing to prevent the stores from logically locating similar items together - trousers, suits, dresses, underwear, nightwear. I fail to understand how this is in anyway more frustrating than it would be now when the only additional factor is whether or not it would 'fit' the male or female better. This is a subjective choice made by the consumer on what they want and whether THEY consider that it is suitable to them. If it happens to be a man who thinks he looks good in a skirt, so be it or, to keep it fair, a woman who thinks she looks good in an oversize jacket, great. It’s all about equality and removing the social and prejudicial barriers that my opponent so unintentionally confirmed do exist in the third paragraph of his 'Thesis overview'. I would like my opponent to fairly consider his comment about wandering into the other section to simply help himself to an item from the section designed for the opposite sex. Whether this is something he may or may not choose to do for himself is almost immaterial because the feeling he would have choosing and buying a skirt for himself would be no different from the feeling that someone who DID want to buy a skirt for themselves would have: Intimidated, feeling foolish, embarrassed, etc. So the question is why would he feel like that? Simply because he would be aware of everything he's put in his arguments trying to dismiss the motion PROVING, beyond all reasonable doubt, that prejudice does exist and the general pattern of thought is that if you are a man buying clothes in the womens department, you must be either gay or weird. I remain unhinged that my opponent denies the resolution. His arguments have undoubtedly proved the sexist and prejudicial thinking associated with clothes shopping. It is time to change this social stigma. If you can't put 'Blacks', 'Whites', 'Gay', 'Lesbian'. 'Able-bodied' or 'Disabled' on sections in shops, it is equally unacceptable to put 'male' or 'female' for the same ethical and quite obvious reasons. Clothes are simply garments that should allow anyone and everyone to express a sense of their own style - the clothes do not and should not be allowed to determine your gender, sexual orientation or any other prejudicial factor. The separation of clothes department by gender actively promotes gender separation, increasing prejudice and reducing choice for both genders regardless of sexual orientation. It is simply archaic and old-fashioned to consider this as acceptable in the modern, tolerant and normally accepting society. My opponent has failed to provide any valid or real argument for not combining the departments in clothes shops and, in recognition of his comments about the 'real world', he needs to recognise that fashions are coverging and his views are stuck in the dark ages when apartheid existed, being gay was taboo and disabled people were treated as second class citizens. Fortunately all that has gone but genderism (perhaps better than 'sexism') and prejudice in fashion is still very real ! ! !