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.
That's why the fight against this trans moral panic is being led by FEMINISTS (notably: feminist lesbians, like Kathleen Stock and Alison Bailey).
That's why the transgenderists' most bitter enemies are TERFs, i.e. FEMINISTS.
That's why the transgenderist lobby can not and will not survive in the face of FEMINISM.
(And I don't mean the crappy misogynism paraded under the fake label "third-wave feminism." That's not feminism, and it never has been. That's the sexists' 1990s takeover of feminism to keep women from actually winning equality in our own world. I'm talking about the fight against sexist exploitation of girls and women, against men making money off of and decisions about girls' and women's bodies, the fight for women to be recognized, paid, and given power equal to men's in our own world: actual FEMINISM.)
Feminism is behind this bill to destroy the influence of gender on children. And when gender goes out the window, so does sexism, genderism, transgenderism, the destruction of women's right to our own spaces--all of it.
As you have so astutely pointed out, feminism is the polar opposite of transgenderism.
And, as Kara Dansky says, if we TERFs can be heard, we will win.
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.
I don't believe it's the governments business or my business to tell store how to organize inventory, but there's public bickering and proposed legislation. I didn't start this but I believe I've made a suggestion that stores could use to end the bickering, if the stores so choose.
I agree. Why not group the toys by type of toy the same way all other products are grouped? I was into trains sets, board games and video games as a kid and wish I was supported in those interests as a girl rather than being told they were "boy" things.
Yes! The only sections that make sense to label by sex are those for clothing. Not only is the fit different for males and females as they develop, but cultural clothing standards and appearance are superficial. On the other hand when it comes to toys, the "gender" signage idiots on both sides are the problem. I agree with the author that most children will gravitate to certain types of toys and games according to sex, but that just indicates no need for "boys" and "girls" sections. The kids will go there themselves. The children that don't fit the mold (you, me) will also choose accordingly. To pass a law requiring a "neutral" section takes the idiocy to the next level.
I agree that sex-based clothing sections make sense cos of the differences between male and female bodies (don't know if you've noticed this too, but so-called "uni-sex" clothing chokes me slightly), so long as there's feminine clothing that's made for male bodies and vice versa. Don't know if it's necessary for kids though. Sex neutral kids clothing could make it clear that different clothing sections exist cos of sex, not gender.
The law requires a seperate neutral section? Might've misread the post then. I thought they'd be required to make the entire toy section neutral by removing the "boys" and "girls" labels. That would make sense.
I have never seen "boy" or "girl" labels in a toy section of a store. Has anyone? My impression was that this was going to start in January, courtesy of the gender police.
Maybe it varies depending on where you are, but there definitely were toy sections labelled as "boys" and "girls" in department stores up until five years ago or so (can't remember exactly when the change happened tbh). I'm glad they got rid of those. I don't think the new law forces them to be added back in, but it does seem like it'll allow them to exist (ugh!)
Clothing standards are superficial, imo, and as long as I have access to comfortable and functional "women's" clothing, I don't care if they look stereotypical. I have shopped in the boys/mens aisles as the T-shirts seem to be made of a heavier cotton. Why must there be "feminine" clothing for male bodies? The stores are providing jobs and selling items people want to buy. My guess is there would be few takers as most humans like to fit in to their culture (I don't go around in Japanese kimonos even though I like them), and the return on investment would hurt the business. The law does not require getting rid of labeled girls and boys toy sections, but it does require "retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1084
I think people do make inferences about your personality based on how you dress though. Trans activists in particular see women dressed in stereotypically feminine ways and think we're expressing our inner womanly feelings and thereby consenting to sexism, when in reality most people aren't anywhere near as obsessed with clothes as they think we are.
There would be at least some demand for it cos trans-identified males at the very least wanna dress feminine. I say make clothes for them and stick them in the men's section, so they know that wearing feminine clothes doesn't make them women. Also, social norms can and should be changed.
Right, thanks for clarifying it. Would be better to just get rid of the "boy" and "girl" categories altogether imo, but I don't think there's much harm in having a section that isn't gendered. As long as they don't label the section "non-binary" or something that implies us normies can't play with the toys there.
I agree except for the "could and should," and "requiring that less stereotypical toys be available." Same with clothing. If someone wants less stereotypical clothing or toys, either make it or start a manufacturing company that produces what one wants. If someone passed a law "requiring" me to produce something that I don't want to make or something that doesn't sell well, I would rather drop my business and live in a tent under a bridge. As far as social norms in dress, people can generally wear whatever they want unless in a professional setting where the employer has a dress code, and I agree with the right of employers to have dress codes, just as I believe in the right of men to go prancing around in a dress on their personal time. I don't like bras and I'm small chested and don't require support, so I rarely wear one. I'm retired military and now have a small farm so no problem. But when in public, depending on the situation, I will sometimes use one to keep people from staring, although there's no law to prevent my choice to go braless. I don't like attention of staring, neurotic eyeballs, so I make a choice that is suitable for me.
Excellent article. I am thoroughly fed up with the federal government and the state of California pushing androgynous/"transgender" propaganda down everyone's throats.
More like "gender neutral." I think in commerce this should be the default but I see no reason for gender neutrality in language. Male and female are real. Call him a steward and her a stewardess, I don't care, as long as they get equal pay.
I disagree. There are significant differences between the sexes, and society should reflect that. For instance, there should be single sex spaces where there is an interest in privacy and/or safety, such as bathrooms and dressing rooms, prisons. And people should be able to choose single sex schools if they would like. And until recently, society was organized accordingly. I'm guessing that the perceived disagreement between DM and EN is to what extent society should be organized around these differences. Perhaps you think that EN is suggesting we be like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? But perhaps he means that girls and women shouldn't have to compete against boys and men.
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.
My two-year-old daughter likes pretty dresses, but she frequently points out clothes she likes in the boys’ section, too.
“Those kind of look like they’re meant for boys,” I’ll say, figuring most children are naturally conformists and androgynous in appearance, so deserve a heads-up before they do something confusing.
“They’re for KIDS!” she retorts indignantly. (Or in some cases, “It has a pterodactyl on it!”)
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.
"Biological essentialism" has become a bit of a ideological loaded term. Activists literally use it mean defining the words man / woman biologically. Alternatively it can mean recognising the impact of biological on men's / women's average personality. Both are fine in my opinion, as long as you the gender non-conforming minority is respected and not told they're wrong.
I don't think we should accept the MRA premise that the existence of average personality differences between men and women are an excuse to mistreat women (if anything the opposite is true, cos one of the most noticeable biological personality differences is that men are more violent). But yes, over-simplifying the differences is bad for people who don't conform to what's typical for their sex.
> Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now.
Like I said elsewhere, then why are nearly half of women on anti-depressants?
> it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
I don't have a problem with actual social improvements. I do have a problem with social deterioration. It appears you don't know how to tell the difference.
I think women having opportunities to get educated, have careers and to pursue their wider interests has been great, thanks very much. I feel sorry for my sisters in Afghanistan who have been firmly put back in their boxes.
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.
Yup. And if the want to protect children, they could censor the sharing of kiddie porn on tech platforms, instead of dissident voices who thought children should be allowed to go to school and get an education and socialize with other kids. There is no way this law is intended to help children. It's a groomer law, to make kids think they are trans.
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.
So then you should have no problem explaining it. Let me make it even easier for you:
Does it mean that stores can keep the same layout and just take down the labels calling the sections "boys' toys" and "girls' toys"? Or do they have to put some boys' toys in the girls' section and vice versa, if so how many?
I actually think it’s a fair question. Most stores stopped labeling aisles for boys and girls years ago and sort toys mainly by type.
There’s an awful lot of glitter in one section vs. earth tones in another, but I’m pretty confused as to what this law is expected to change, if anything.
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.
When I was a teenager, I discovered an interest in boys, but I also liked Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons and actions movies, etc. Today, I'd be called non-binary, maybe, but in reality I was just a gay kid who liked stereotypically boy things. If I'd been a teen today, somebody probably woulda talked me into hormones and they/them pronouns, instead of just leaving me alone to be who I was.
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.
My view is mostly unrelated to nature vs. nurture; instead, I wonder if this is the kind of thing that California should make a matter of law.
I dislike when gender stereotypes are pushed on children, but I also don't like when people cheat at boardgames, or when they rude to cashiers--should we illegalize those things, too? There are lots of things in our society that are potentially harmful, but at the end of the day we should recognize that many of those things are out of the proper reach of government. (I say this as a diehard liberal.) So while the Golden State may intend to do good, I think it's just doing too much.
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.
Yes it is interesting. Toys mustn't be gender stereotyped and yet, if kids themselves break the rules and pick stereotypical toys, they need surgery.
If my comment was tldr, yours fills the bill for those short of time😊 Beautifully succinct and well said❤️
Indeed!
Boy picks up a doll.
Girl doesn't pick up a doll.
Get them on the operating table right away. Help them to be "who they really are."
/s
Learn to see the sickness.
I see sarcasm is lost on you.
I wasn't talking to you. Be grateful that anyone does.
Says the account with no followers.
Point?
This is it exactly.
That's why the fight against this trans moral panic is being led by FEMINISTS (notably: feminist lesbians, like Kathleen Stock and Alison Bailey).
That's why the transgenderists' most bitter enemies are TERFs, i.e. FEMINISTS.
That's why the transgenderist lobby can not and will not survive in the face of FEMINISM.
(And I don't mean the crappy misogynism paraded under the fake label "third-wave feminism." That's not feminism, and it never has been. That's the sexists' 1990s takeover of feminism to keep women from actually winning equality in our own world. I'm talking about the fight against sexist exploitation of girls and women, against men making money off of and decisions about girls' and women's bodies, the fight for women to be recognized, paid, and given power equal to men's in our own world: actual FEMINISM.)
Feminism is behind this bill to destroy the influence of gender on children. And when gender goes out the window, so does sexism, genderism, transgenderism, the destruction of women's right to our own spaces--all of it.
As you have so astutely pointed out, feminism is the polar opposite of transgenderism.
And, as Kara Dansky says, if we TERFs can be heard, we will win.
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.
Why is it any of the government's business how stores choose to organize their inventory?
I don't believe it's the governments business or my business to tell store how to organize inventory, but there's public bickering and proposed legislation. I didn't start this but I believe I've made a suggestion that stores could use to end the bickering, if the stores so choose.
Stop seeing monsters. This reflexive anti-government stuff is just tiresome.
Answer my question.
And while you're at it, stop bootlicking.
Eat shit.
I agree. Why not group the toys by type of toy the same way all other products are grouped? I was into trains sets, board games and video games as a kid and wish I was supported in those interests as a girl rather than being told they were "boy" things.
Yes! The only sections that make sense to label by sex are those for clothing. Not only is the fit different for males and females as they develop, but cultural clothing standards and appearance are superficial. On the other hand when it comes to toys, the "gender" signage idiots on both sides are the problem. I agree with the author that most children will gravitate to certain types of toys and games according to sex, but that just indicates no need for "boys" and "girls" sections. The kids will go there themselves. The children that don't fit the mold (you, me) will also choose accordingly. To pass a law requiring a "neutral" section takes the idiocy to the next level.
I agree that sex-based clothing sections make sense cos of the differences between male and female bodies (don't know if you've noticed this too, but so-called "uni-sex" clothing chokes me slightly), so long as there's feminine clothing that's made for male bodies and vice versa. Don't know if it's necessary for kids though. Sex neutral kids clothing could make it clear that different clothing sections exist cos of sex, not gender.
The law requires a seperate neutral section? Might've misread the post then. I thought they'd be required to make the entire toy section neutral by removing the "boys" and "girls" labels. That would make sense.
I have never seen "boy" or "girl" labels in a toy section of a store. Has anyone? My impression was that this was going to start in January, courtesy of the gender police.
Maybe it varies depending on where you are, but there definitely were toy sections labelled as "boys" and "girls" in department stores up until five years ago or so (can't remember exactly when the change happened tbh). I'm glad they got rid of those. I don't think the new law forces them to be added back in, but it does seem like it'll allow them to exist (ugh!)
> I'm glad they got rid of those.
Why?
Clothing standards are superficial, imo, and as long as I have access to comfortable and functional "women's" clothing, I don't care if they look stereotypical. I have shopped in the boys/mens aisles as the T-shirts seem to be made of a heavier cotton. Why must there be "feminine" clothing for male bodies? The stores are providing jobs and selling items people want to buy. My guess is there would be few takers as most humans like to fit in to their culture (I don't go around in Japanese kimonos even though I like them), and the return on investment would hurt the business. The law does not require getting rid of labeled girls and boys toy sections, but it does require "retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1084
I think people do make inferences about your personality based on how you dress though. Trans activists in particular see women dressed in stereotypically feminine ways and think we're expressing our inner womanly feelings and thereby consenting to sexism, when in reality most people aren't anywhere near as obsessed with clothes as they think we are.
There would be at least some demand for it cos trans-identified males at the very least wanna dress feminine. I say make clothes for them and stick them in the men's section, so they know that wearing feminine clothes doesn't make them women. Also, social norms can and should be changed.
Right, thanks for clarifying it. Would be better to just get rid of the "boy" and "girl" categories altogether imo, but I don't think there's much harm in having a section that isn't gendered. As long as they don't label the section "non-binary" or something that implies us normies can't play with the toys there.
I agree except for the "could and should," and "requiring that less stereotypical toys be available." Same with clothing. If someone wants less stereotypical clothing or toys, either make it or start a manufacturing company that produces what one wants. If someone passed a law "requiring" me to produce something that I don't want to make or something that doesn't sell well, I would rather drop my business and live in a tent under a bridge. As far as social norms in dress, people can generally wear whatever they want unless in a professional setting where the employer has a dress code, and I agree with the right of employers to have dress codes, just as I believe in the right of men to go prancing around in a dress on their personal time. I don't like bras and I'm small chested and don't require support, so I rarely wear one. I'm retired military and now have a small farm so no problem. But when in public, depending on the situation, I will sometimes use one to keep people from staring, although there's no law to prevent my choice to go braless. I don't like attention of staring, neurotic eyeballs, so I make a choice that is suitable for me.
Just organize the damn things into sections without having separate aisles and find something else to wring hands over.
That's what I said. Organise toys based on toy type.
How about you follow your own advice and stop hand-wringing over how stores choose to organize their wares?
Excellent article. I am thoroughly fed up with the federal government and the state of California pushing androgynous/"transgender" propaganda down everyone's throats.
More like "gender neutral." I think in commerce this should be the default but I see no reason for gender neutrality in language. Male and female are real. Call him a steward and her a stewardess, I don't care, as long as they get equal pay.
> Male and female are real.
And are there any significant differences between males and females?
If so, then shouldn't society be organized to reflect that?
If not, then why does it matter if a man wants to be called a woman?
You are not making a lot of sense. In fact, you are not making any sense.
Yes, there are differences. No, society should not be organized around those differences, because we are vastly more like than different.
You're weird.
I disagree. There are significant differences between the sexes, and society should reflect that. For instance, there should be single sex spaces where there is an interest in privacy and/or safety, such as bathrooms and dressing rooms, prisons. And people should be able to choose single sex schools if they would like. And until recently, society was organized accordingly. I'm guessing that the perceived disagreement between DM and EN is to what extent society should be organized around these differences. Perhaps you think that EN is suggesting we be like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia? But perhaps he means that girls and women shouldn't have to compete against boys and men.
> You are not making a lot of sense. In fact, you are not making any sense.
Yeh, I bet a lot of things don't make sense to you.
> because we are vastly more like than different.
Compared to what?
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.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with gender neutral toys and clothes.
My two-year-old daughter likes pretty dresses, but she frequently points out clothes she likes in the boys’ section, too.
“Those kind of look like they’re meant for boys,” I’ll say, figuring most children are naturally conformists and androgynous in appearance, so deserve a heads-up before they do something confusing.
“They’re for KIDS!” she retorts indignantly. (Or in some cases, “It has a pterodactyl on it!”)
Who can argue with that?
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.
Damn, you're right. Yeah, let them neuter the toys.
Better they neuter toys than kids :)
Don't give them ideas.
"Biological essentialism" has become a bit of a ideological loaded term. Activists literally use it mean defining the words man / woman biologically. Alternatively it can mean recognising the impact of biological on men's / women's average personality. Both are fine in my opinion, as long as you the gender non-conforming minority is respected and not told they're wrong.
I don't think we should accept the MRA premise that the existence of average personality differences between men and women are an excuse to mistreat women (if anything the opposite is true, cos one of the most noticeable biological personality differences is that men are more violent). But yes, over-simplifying the differences is bad for people who don't conform to what's typical for their sex.
> I have concerns that the queer theory/ gender ideology debate is being used by some to try and put us women back in our box.
How has being "out of your box" worked out for you?
Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now. You have a problem with that?
Perusing these comments, it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
> Where you been, Eugine? It's worked out very well. Women can have careers now.
Like I said elsewhere, then why are nearly half of women on anti-depressants?
> it seems as if you have some problem with every social advance since the 16th century.
I don't have a problem with actual social improvements. I do have a problem with social deterioration. It appears you don't know how to tell the difference.
I think women having opportunities to get educated, have careers and to pursue their wider interests has been great, thanks very much. I feel sorry for my sisters in Afghanistan who have been firmly put back in their boxes.
Then why are nearly half of American women on anti-depressants?
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.
Yup. And if the want to protect children, they could censor the sharing of kiddie porn on tech platforms, instead of dissident voices who thought children should be allowed to go to school and get an education and socialize with other kids. There is no way this law is intended to help children. It's a groomer law, to make kids think they are trans.
"Nanny state."
Disqualified.
What makes you think you're authorized to "disqualified" anybody?
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"?
Ask an eight-year-old to explain it to you
So then you should have no problem explaining it. Let me make it even easier for you:
Does it mean that stores can keep the same layout and just take down the labels calling the sections "boys' toys" and "girls' toys"? Or do they have to put some boys' toys in the girls' section and vice versa, if so how many?
I actually think it’s a fair question. Most stores stopped labeling aisles for boys and girls years ago and sort toys mainly by type.
There’s an awful lot of glitter in one section vs. earth tones in another, but I’m pretty confused as to what this law is expected to change, if anything.
It could be simply political grandstanding, but I wouldn't discount the leftists putting something rather nasty in one of its provisions.
I'm not wasting any more time "debating" someone like you.
Because you suck at debating.
Is that what you call what you’re doing? Debating?
Well, I'd imagine it would all go over your head considering you can't even answer simple questions.
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.
Yes!
When I was a teenager, I discovered an interest in boys, but I also liked Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons and actions movies, etc. Today, I'd be called non-binary, maybe, but in reality I was just a gay kid who liked stereotypically boy things. If I'd been a teen today, somebody probably woulda talked me into hormones and they/them pronouns, instead of just leaving me alone to be who I was.
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.
Thanks for this.
My view is mostly unrelated to nature vs. nurture; instead, I wonder if this is the kind of thing that California should make a matter of law.
I dislike when gender stereotypes are pushed on children, but I also don't like when people cheat at boardgames, or when they rude to cashiers--should we illegalize those things, too? There are lots of things in our society that are potentially harmful, but at the end of the day we should recognize that many of those things are out of the proper reach of government. (I say this as a diehard liberal.) So while the Golden State may intend to do good, I think it's just doing too much.