I'm two pages late and seeing red.
"For example, tying in the premise of the article - having worked with children from nursery through high school at various times, I noticed that boys, when fighting, tend to *fight* - i.e. push, shove, punch...they do their harm, and then can make up and move on being friends. Girls, on the other hand, from the earliest ages, tend to be far less physical...but they do harm one another through the use of words and social manipulation - emotional warfare that is based on, apparently, their increased language abilities. " - Krellin
Right, boys fight violently and girls fight nonviolently because of natural, inevitable tendencies, not, say, the fact that boys are given army men and action figures as toys, with violent shows marketed to boys only, while girls are given dolls and ponies and other non-violent toys.
What you're doing is saying that kids act a certain way and therefore should be raised a certain way, which in turn causes kids to act a certain way. You can't use an outcome's existence to justify actions to cause that outcome.