5 ms·

Why?

• ceejayoz 5y ago
  The reasons are included in the article.
  • baybal2 5y ago
    I read them, and I still don't get them.
• geofft 5y ago
  From the article: > “Part of it is to make sure if you’re a young girl that you can find a police car, fire truck, a periodic table or a dinosaur,” Low said. “And then similarly, if you’re a boy, if you’re more artistic and want to play with glitter, why not? Why should you feel the stigma of saying, ‘Oh, this should be shamed’ and going to a different location?” > Low said the daughter of one of his staff members inspired the bill when the girl questioned why she had to go to the boys section to find certain toys. Actually most of the article is dedicated to answering this question. You can also look at the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1084 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... > The Legislature finds and declares both of the following: > (a) Unjustified differences in similar products that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys can be more easily identified by the consumer if similar items are displayed closer to one another in one, undivided area of the retail sales floor. > (b) Keeping similar items that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys separated makes it more difficult for the consumer to compare the products and incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.
  • baybal2 5y ago
    Yes, what's the point of this?
    • ceejayoz 5y ago
      To mitigate the negative effects mentioned? > Leaper said boys and girls section also create a stigma for children who are gender non-conforming or exploring other gender identities. > “But even for kids that identify with their birth-assigned gender there may be some children who want to play with some of these toys, but then end up avoiding them because they don’t want to be considered abnormal somehow,” Leaper said.
      • baybal2 5y ago
        What a mental gymnastics indeed. I could've never figured out such a contrived line of thought.
• exabrial 5y ago
  I agree. There are much bigger issues the government is causing: proliferous waste of public funds, water crisis, incarceration rates, extremely homeless/vagrant populations among many others.
  • gruez 5y ago
    But those are actually hard problems, whereas this is a feel-good bill to placate a certain segment of your voter base.
  • seoaeu 5y ago
    All the more reason to pass this and move on to focusing on bigger issues!
• snthd 5y ago
  Instilling implicit conformance to stereotypes is an affront to curiosity. Curiosity matters.
  • version_five 5y ago
    Its ironic someone would invoke free thinking in defense of law like this.
• mansion7 5y ago
  A key tenet of progressive belief is that one can manipulate the thoughts of a populace by: 1) banning or altering the words they are allowed to use 2) introducing new words to soften concepts which were previously seen as weird, unusual, or deviant. For example, the replacement of "prostitute" with "sex worker", or "undocumented immigrant" with "illegal aliens". The new terms obfuscate the plain meaning of the prior terms, thereby softening the subject in the minds of the populace one is trying to manipulate.