3 ms·

>I notice you seem to have jumped from "kids" to basically straight male kids. Well, yes, because men are more influenced by hormones to actively pursue women

>I notice you seem to have jumped from "kids" to basically straight male kids. Well, yes, because men are more influenced by hormones to actively pursue women who passively choose suitors, like virtually any other sexually dimorphic species. And straight males make up easily 90%+ of the male population, so I don't know why you've even added that qualifier? >In times and places when gender-based segregation was the norm, how much potential was lost when women and girls were either excluded from schools or shunted to lesser schools with a reduced curriculum? That's not an argument against gendered segregation.

abeppu 5y ago
> That's not an argument against gendered segregation. It absolutely is. Gender-based segregation a long history and a terrible track record. You're fixated on what men "lose" by being in an integrated context. The loss to society overall has to account for the other half of the population whose potential and access to education was stifled under that system. How gender-based segregation performed when used is absolutely the appropriate measure of how harmful it is. Some archconservative will always be able to invent some new ad-hoc criteria and say "we haven't tried my specific new framing of segregation; this time I totally promise can make separate but equal equal. You should totally ignore the centuries of history where we tried this and squandered the intellectual capacity of a large fraction of the population as being no longer relevant."