The debate was held in British Parliamentary (BP) format, with beginner-level debaters.
The Opening Government (OG) brought these main arguments: a police department with female officers only would be a safe space for women to express their concerns. A police department with female officers would only be one step further to stop discrimination.
The reasoning of the OG concluded that according to the status quo, the number of domestic abuse and murders of women is increasing day by day in Kosovo; therefore, a female-only department in the police would enable women to feel more comfortable about speaking up about the abuse they are going through, and not suffer in silence, since women are supposedly more “empathetic.” Furthermore, it was implied that women would not feel safe reporting to the same gender that has abused them. Moreover, a female-only department would open new job places, hence tackle unemployment among women in Kosovo, and help achieve 50% representation of women in Police Forces, which is guaranteed by the Law but not necessarily implemented.
The Opening Opposition (OO) addressed the OG’s first argument by vouching to avoid generalizations and highlighted that “all men are not the same,” and not only men are abusers.
The main arguments brought by the OO were: if a failure occurs in the department, the general population will blame it on the fact that they are women and a combination of an equal number of both men and women in the departments.
Since women are generally stigmatized and prejudged, if an error took place in a department with only female police officers, the fault would automatically lie in the fact that they are females, strengthening the presumption that women are incapable. Secondly, based on scientific facts that men are physically stronger, a police team consisting of the two genders would be more balanced.
OO’s second argument was taken down by The Closing Government (CG), which denied the importance of men’s physical strength, since the entrance exam for the Police Academy has the same criteria for both male and female candidates, and acceptance automatically means full capability for the police duties.
CG’s brought these main arguments to the debate: female empowerment, PTSD, safe space for women’s concerns, and inclusivity. However, the debate derailed sexism with CG’s claims that male police officers should be removed altogether from the police forces for the reason that women are generally more responsible than men.
CG’s logic supported the idea that a department with female officers only would serve as means for female empowerment by emphasizing that women are strong and successful. In addition, it would provide a safe space for women and their concerns (specifically domestic or sexual abuse). On the contrary, as a response to the traumatic events they have witnessed because of men, women would hesitate to speak up to a male police officer. In this way, equal participation, inclusivity, and representation in the workplace would be ensured.
The Closing Opposition (CO) relied on and strongly supported the OO’s first: if a failure occurs in the department, the general population will blame it on the fact that they are women, and the second argument, a combination of an equal number of both men and women in the department.
CG’s PTSD analysis was addressed by the CO, which pointed out that those cases could still be reported to the remaining 50% of women in the department, according to the combination solution.
CG’s sexist remarks were debunked by the statement that gender stereotypes are not true and should not be reinforced.