As critics have noted, the split isn't just interior versus exterior. Many sets marketed to boys have as many interior spaces as exterior. The difference is tha

As critics have noted, the split isn't just interior versus exterior. Many sets marketed to boys have as many interior spaces as exterior. The difference is that sets marketed to girls are distinctly pink and emphasize homemaking, beauty, cute animals, mini-dresses and other traditionally female-appropriate things (things a sexist world might call frivolous and stupid) whereas sets marketed to boys emphasize science and adventure. If children statistically prefer one to the other its because we teach them which things are for boys and which things are for girls. AND (this part is really important), through astute powers of observation, kids are also learn early on that people are often severely socially punished for disobeying gender norms (see: how cross-dressing is often thought to be freakish and wrong, how many people hate butch lesbians, how calling a male a girl or a pussy is one of the worst insults you can give him). If it were just a matter of interior versus exterior, why not market them as focused on interior versus exterior rather than for girls versus for boys? To the extent that the sets marketed to girls limit girls' exposure to non-traditional tasks, LEGO is reinforcing traditional gender norms and many progressive people reject that precisely because it is so limiting.