3 ms·

Well intentioned, but I feel government should probably spend more energy on more consequential issues. The private sector is perfectly capable of sorting this

• fasthands9 3y ago
  >It will apply to retailers with 500 or more employees across their California stores. I'm trying to think of what stores it would even apply to other than Wal-mart or Target? What other large chain stores even sell toys? It does seem extremely performative either way. I wonder if those stores will change their aisle design for toys or just get rid of the toys completely, if they are worried they could be sued if they do it wrong.
  • nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    It's mostly inconsequential. Small fines per offense, and the only requirement is a "reasonable selection" of toys in a non gender-specific aisle. I'm guessing most retailers already comply since many toys are inherently gender neutral. Just woke virtue signaling, not super important.
• drewcoo 3y ago
  > I feel government should probably spend more energy on more consequential issues Feel away, but this is about formative behavior (play!) by children. There will be consequences. Even if we cannot forecast them now. > The private sector is perfectly capable of sorting this issue out on its own based on consumer demand. The private sector seeks profit. Government is not supposed to seek profit, but communal well-being. The issue is not "what is the most profitable way to arrange gender-play."