Letting kids be kids, rather than mandating costly laws and policies, is the best way to make children who do not engage in sex-typical play feel included.
They have to have it both ways, don't they. A 3 year old boy who likes to play with dolls and dress in his older sister's dance outfit is definitely really a girl and must be rushed into the maw of mutilation and mental illness, while having toy sections in stores appealing to the tastes of girls, and the interest of boys is BAD and must be stopped lest the little ones show their preference for toys relating to their biological sex. These ideologues have no judgment or common sense - they are mentally ill sadists, narcissists or psychopaths - maybe all 3.
John Money, the founder of the modern movement known as “gender identity” carried out an experiment on two brothers, one of whom had sadly lost his penis due to a botched circumcision at the age of 8 months. Money, to test his theory of gender identity, who the parents had turned to, urged them to raise this son as a girl, while continuing to raise his brother as a boy.
The boy whom Money wanted to be a girl received further surgeries to feminize his genitals, was given girls clothes, while the parents were instructed to socialize him as a girl. Money would thus prove his theory that one’s gender is not biological, but socially formed.
That boy, David Reimer, knew he was a boy. He didn’t want to play with the dolls that were given him, but his brother’s toy trucks and other boy toys. He also preferred to dress as a male and be treated as a male.
The story ends tragically, for John Money had molested the prepubescent boys in pursuit of proving his pet theory at their enormous expense. First David, then the other Reimer brother committed suicide shortly after reaching maturity.
That’s the sad story of pedophile perversion that undergirds our modern gender identity movement.
The obvious solution that should be agreeable to both sides is to label the toy sections by function rather than by sex. A section of 1) toy cars and trucks 2) dolls 3) computers 4) tools 5) board games 6) art supplies 7) baby toys 8) sports, etc. Why is there a need to label some for "boys" or "girls?" Are some afraid their child won't choose "correctly" if not directed by the sign the adults put up? I'm a female who, as a little girl, did not like dolls and also lacking creative ability (skipping the art supplies), I went directly for the tools (and book section). That was in the 60's. This isn't hard, unless the adults make it hard.
Excellent article. I am thoroughly fed up with the federal government and the state of California pushing androgynous/"transgender" propaganda down everyone's throats.
Shoving fewer gender stereotypes down kids’ throats is a good thing...if only we could get the adults to move on. Real boys can play with dolls. Real girls can love dinosaurs. But it’s ok if they don’t. Let them play how they like.
I feel like the world runs more on gender stereotypes now than it did 20 years ago.
I remember being in summer camp right before the cusp of gender politics. The boy toys and girl toys were separated for the sake of easy categorization. And, for the most part, the boys played with other boys and the girls played with other girls.
One day, however, I was building out a little world and needed toys from "the other side" to complete it. I bashfully asked a supervisor if I was even allowed to do so.
She told me, "You can play with whatever you want, so long as you put it back where you got it from."
I recognise that this law is probably being pushed by gender ideologues who mistakenly believe in the blank slate model of human personality / interests, but as a female person who preferred "boy toys" when I was growing up, I don't think the law itself is that harmful.
In fact it may work against gender ideology, since the belief that there are "boy toys" and "girl toys" probably contributes to kids thinking they're born in the wrong body if they want to play with the "wrong" toys.
If toys are just labeled as toys kids can pick whatever toys they want without feeling like there's something wrong with them if their toy choices aren't typical. If that results in most boys playing with trucks and most girls playing with dolls (cos of biological predispositions) that's fine, but supporting the minority of gender non-conforming kids by changing labels isn't the same as supporting trans ideology. We shouldn't conflate the two.
The Nanny State strikes again. Mandating by law what can be displayed and what cannot. In the mean time, kids can walk by junkies in the street. People can live in tent cities under freeway bridges and all is fine. It would be really nice for those of us who live in Lotus Land to know that our representatives in Sacramento are doing what they should be doing and stop meddling in everyone’s life.
I subscribe to some YouTube channels that cover toys and pop culture news. According to the people who ought to know, the new California law will accomplish exactly nothing. All the big box retailers already have entire aisles of toys that are not segregated by "gender." It's the most useless, virtue-signalling law they have ever heard of.
I’m so confused. So, preference for dolls or trucks is just a socialized behavior and wouldn’t exist if not for retail merchandising, those notorious social engineers...but a girl who likes trucks or a boy who wants a Barbie Hairstyling Studio are obviously transgender because preference for these toys indicate an inborn gender preference at odds with one’s physical body, even though we just established that it’s all socialization?
In my own experience, I was quite the progressive feminist mom at first, so my daughters had dolls, trucks, dinosaurs, and Legos. And...they used the legos to build furniture for the dinosaurs, and played mommy truck and daddy truck and baby truck. They liked sticks and rocks, but mostly wanted to gather these items vs their little male friends who wanted to throw the rocks and hit each other with sticks. I remember my daughter plaintively wailing “Mom! We want to gather leaves but the boys keep taking them and THROWING them!” Having children was such a wake-up call; I really believed all the blank-slate, societal pressure theories until I had actual children and the opportunity to observe them closely.
One daughter was much more tomboyish than the others and always wore boys clothes and played with the boys, but around age 12 she suddenly developed an interest in makeup and fashion and became surprisingly girly. She’s in her 20s now and still loves martial arts and swords, and works as an IT professional; but she also loves clothes, makeup, jewelry and anything shaped like cute animals. Some of her friend group are now trans or non-binary; so I am thankful that our attitude of “it’s ok to be a weird girl or weird boy” maybe shielded her from thinking she must be trans because she doesn’t conform to stereotypes.
Actually, I see this as really hopeful. It's means the age-old feminist fight against gender is gaining ground--even among those so confused that they think they support genderism.
The trans moral panic can't indoctrinate children into wanting to "change sex" over their choice of toys, if children are being actively discouraged from associating their sex with their toys.
The trans moral panic claims that a little girl who wants to hang out on the "boy" aisle must be a boy, or a little boy who wants to hang out on the "girl" aisle must be a girl. Thus, they need irreversible medical intervention to "change sex" so they'll look like the other children hanging out on the aisle they like best.
But this law disagrees with that claim. They're simply what they are: girls and boys. They don't need to change anything about themselves. They just need a place to play.
So this is the 100% OPPOSITE of the Genderbread Person. And, as such, it should be celebrated.
As Kara Dansky says: if we can be heard, we will win.
With the current trajectory, we’re probably quite close to the state banning the differentiation of men’s and women’s clothing sections. The giant populace of illegal immigrants will be along for the ride and will be afraid to protest
I'm glad someone wrote about this, but the important question was not touched on. How does the law define "gender neutral"? And if there is a defined "gender neutral," then there must be gendered toys, and if there are gendered toys, there are by necessity "boys toys" and "girls toys." I would like to know what these are. And if they are, as I suspect, trucks and science kits for boys and dolls and make-up kits for girls, I'm disgusted. I suspect that this law is intended to create more "trans kids" by explicitly saying "these toys are for boys, these are for girls, and these are for the 'theybies'." As a woman who never played with dolls (but after giving birth to a daughter finally realized how much fun it is to dress up and care for a real baby), and whose favorite toy was a Tonka truck, I am glad I grew up in a time when I could play with trucks and science kits and Legos of any color and no one was telling me "these are boys toys," with the implicit "so you must be a boy." I agree with the author that the law imposes a stupid and heavy burden on toy sellers, but this laws seems way more perverse than simply hurting business owners and consumers as such.
I'm a centrist Dem and not generally a foe of the administrative state, but I hope the toy industry litigates this all the way to the Supreme Court and wins. Does the law pass muster under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution? Is there a way to present this as impermissible compelled speech? After all, if corporations are people, then they certainly have the capacity to be opposed to gender identity ideology.
Hmm.
I wonder if Hobby Lobby falls within the scope of this new law. They've been around the block with this sort of thing before.
They have to have it both ways, don't they. A 3 year old boy who likes to play with dolls and dress in his older sister's dance outfit is definitely really a girl and must be rushed into the maw of mutilation and mental illness, while having toy sections in stores appealing to the tastes of girls, and the interest of boys is BAD and must be stopped lest the little ones show their preference for toys relating to their biological sex. These ideologues have no judgment or common sense - they are mentally ill sadists, narcissists or psychopaths - maybe all 3.
John Money, the founder of the modern movement known as “gender identity” carried out an experiment on two brothers, one of whom had sadly lost his penis due to a botched circumcision at the age of 8 months. Money, to test his theory of gender identity, who the parents had turned to, urged them to raise this son as a girl, while continuing to raise his brother as a boy.
The boy whom Money wanted to be a girl received further surgeries to feminize his genitals, was given girls clothes, while the parents were instructed to socialize him as a girl. Money would thus prove his theory that one’s gender is not biological, but socially formed.
That boy, David Reimer, knew he was a boy. He didn’t want to play with the dolls that were given him, but his brother’s toy trucks and other boy toys. He also preferred to dress as a male and be treated as a male.
The story ends tragically, for John Money had molested the prepubescent boys in pursuit of proving his pet theory at their enormous expense. First David, then the other Reimer brother committed suicide shortly after reaching maturity.
That’s the sad story of pedophile perversion that undergirds our modern gender identity movement.
The obvious solution that should be agreeable to both sides is to label the toy sections by function rather than by sex. A section of 1) toy cars and trucks 2) dolls 3) computers 4) tools 5) board games 6) art supplies 7) baby toys 8) sports, etc. Why is there a need to label some for "boys" or "girls?" Are some afraid their child won't choose "correctly" if not directed by the sign the adults put up? I'm a female who, as a little girl, did not like dolls and also lacking creative ability (skipping the art supplies), I went directly for the tools (and book section). That was in the 60's. This isn't hard, unless the adults make it hard.
Excellent article. I am thoroughly fed up with the federal government and the state of California pushing androgynous/"transgender" propaganda down everyone's throats.
Shoving fewer gender stereotypes down kids’ throats is a good thing...if only we could get the adults to move on. Real boys can play with dolls. Real girls can love dinosaurs. But it’s ok if they don’t. Let them play how they like.
I feel like the world runs more on gender stereotypes now than it did 20 years ago.
I remember being in summer camp right before the cusp of gender politics. The boy toys and girl toys were separated for the sake of easy categorization. And, for the most part, the boys played with other boys and the girls played with other girls.
One day, however, I was building out a little world and needed toys from "the other side" to complete it. I bashfully asked a supervisor if I was even allowed to do so.
She told me, "You can play with whatever you want, so long as you put it back where you got it from."
She didn't need the state telling her to do that.
I recognise that this law is probably being pushed by gender ideologues who mistakenly believe in the blank slate model of human personality / interests, but as a female person who preferred "boy toys" when I was growing up, I don't think the law itself is that harmful.
In fact it may work against gender ideology, since the belief that there are "boy toys" and "girl toys" probably contributes to kids thinking they're born in the wrong body if they want to play with the "wrong" toys.
If toys are just labeled as toys kids can pick whatever toys they want without feeling like there's something wrong with them if their toy choices aren't typical. If that results in most boys playing with trucks and most girls playing with dolls (cos of biological predispositions) that's fine, but supporting the minority of gender non-conforming kids by changing labels isn't the same as supporting trans ideology. We shouldn't conflate the two.
The Nanny State strikes again. Mandating by law what can be displayed and what cannot. In the mean time, kids can walk by junkies in the street. People can live in tent cities under freeway bridges and all is fine. It would be really nice for those of us who live in Lotus Land to know that our representatives in Sacramento are doing what they should be doing and stop meddling in everyone’s life.
I subscribe to some YouTube channels that cover toys and pop culture news. According to the people who ought to know, the new California law will accomplish exactly nothing. All the big box retailers already have entire aisles of toys that are not segregated by "gender." It's the most useless, virtue-signalling law they have ever heard of.
What exactly is a "gender neutral childcare and toy section"?
I just read the first paragraph and thought can't the owner just point to the entire section for toys and call it gender neutral?
I’m so confused. So, preference for dolls or trucks is just a socialized behavior and wouldn’t exist if not for retail merchandising, those notorious social engineers...but a girl who likes trucks or a boy who wants a Barbie Hairstyling Studio are obviously transgender because preference for these toys indicate an inborn gender preference at odds with one’s physical body, even though we just established that it’s all socialization?
In my own experience, I was quite the progressive feminist mom at first, so my daughters had dolls, trucks, dinosaurs, and Legos. And...they used the legos to build furniture for the dinosaurs, and played mommy truck and daddy truck and baby truck. They liked sticks and rocks, but mostly wanted to gather these items vs their little male friends who wanted to throw the rocks and hit each other with sticks. I remember my daughter plaintively wailing “Mom! We want to gather leaves but the boys keep taking them and THROWING them!” Having children was such a wake-up call; I really believed all the blank-slate, societal pressure theories until I had actual children and the opportunity to observe them closely.
One daughter was much more tomboyish than the others and always wore boys clothes and played with the boys, but around age 12 she suddenly developed an interest in makeup and fashion and became surprisingly girly. She’s in her 20s now and still loves martial arts and swords, and works as an IT professional; but she also loves clothes, makeup, jewelry and anything shaped like cute animals. Some of her friend group are now trans or non-binary; so I am thankful that our attitude of “it’s ok to be a weird girl or weird boy” maybe shielded her from thinking she must be trans because she doesn’t conform to stereotypes.
Actually, I see this as really hopeful. It's means the age-old feminist fight against gender is gaining ground--even among those so confused that they think they support genderism.
The trans moral panic can't indoctrinate children into wanting to "change sex" over their choice of toys, if children are being actively discouraged from associating their sex with their toys.
The trans moral panic claims that a little girl who wants to hang out on the "boy" aisle must be a boy, or a little boy who wants to hang out on the "girl" aisle must be a girl. Thus, they need irreversible medical intervention to "change sex" so they'll look like the other children hanging out on the aisle they like best.
But this law disagrees with that claim. They're simply what they are: girls and boys. They don't need to change anything about themselves. They just need a place to play.
So this is the 100% OPPOSITE of the Genderbread Person. And, as such, it should be celebrated.
As Kara Dansky says: if we can be heard, we will win.
With the current trajectory, we’re probably quite close to the state banning the differentiation of men’s and women’s clothing sections. The giant populace of illegal immigrants will be along for the ride and will be afraid to protest
I'm glad someone wrote about this, but the important question was not touched on. How does the law define "gender neutral"? And if there is a defined "gender neutral," then there must be gendered toys, and if there are gendered toys, there are by necessity "boys toys" and "girls toys." I would like to know what these are. And if they are, as I suspect, trucks and science kits for boys and dolls and make-up kits for girls, I'm disgusted. I suspect that this law is intended to create more "trans kids" by explicitly saying "these toys are for boys, these are for girls, and these are for the 'theybies'." As a woman who never played with dolls (but after giving birth to a daughter finally realized how much fun it is to dress up and care for a real baby), and whose favorite toy was a Tonka truck, I am glad I grew up in a time when I could play with trucks and science kits and Legos of any color and no one was telling me "these are boys toys," with the implicit "so you must be a boy." I agree with the author that the law imposes a stupid and heavy burden on toy sellers, but this laws seems way more perverse than simply hurting business owners and consumers as such.
I'm a centrist Dem and not generally a foe of the administrative state, but I hope the toy industry litigates this all the way to the Supreme Court and wins. Does the law pass muster under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution? Is there a way to present this as impermissible compelled speech? After all, if corporations are people, then they certainly have the capacity to be opposed to gender identity ideology.
Hmm.
I wonder if Hobby Lobby falls within the scope of this new law. They've been around the block with this sort of thing before.