Would you say a sign saying 'girls toys' is inappropriate?

[I1L2T3]

What a crazy thread. 

 

My experience as as a parent is more and more toys are now gender neutral. They’re just toys. There’s lots of stuff out there marketed to both genders, and specifically to genders too. I never thought about it on any level except getting my kids what they asked for. When my daughter wanted Batman Lego I’d buy it. Another time she wanted a doll. She got that too.

 

Nobody is threatened by any of this. The consumers of these products and their parents are demanding flexible choices and that is what the market is providing.

 

Parents can choose whether or not to pay attention to any research. If they decide not to then nobody is suggesting they have choices taken away and there is no threat of that. A look in any toy shop would confirm that.

 

 

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, makapaka said:

Previous posters said it is.

 

i didn’t cherry pick anything. That is the author’s  summary.

 

Did you not read it or did you interpret that summary differently?

What you did was the definition of cherry picking.

 

' Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. '

 

You claim  ' they aren’t concluding or proving anything in terms of tangible impact. ' you cherry picked the last sentence of the conclusion in an attempt to demonstrate your claim, whilst choosing to ignore the obvious points from the author that would counter your claim.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

What you did was the definition of cherry picking.

 

' Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. '

 

You claim  ' they aren’t concluding or proving anything in terms of tangible impact. ' you cherry picked the last sentence of the conclusion in an attempt to demonstrate your claim, whilst choosing to ignore the obvious points from the author that would counter your claim.

 

 

Which bit of the author’s summary counters my claim?

 

how do you interpret the summary?

 

None of the authors previous comments change the summary of their findings do they? 

 

still - you spend your time ignoring that and google definitions of cherry picking instead......

 

[SnailyBoy]

You already know the parts that counter your claim, they were the cherries you failed to pick.

[Guest makapaka]

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

You already know the parts that counter your claim, they were the cherries you failed to pick.

Which cherries - post the bit your referring to.

 

Just as a side - you do know that your reference material is an undergraduate dissertation don’t you? 

Edited December 28, 2018 by makapaka

[SnailyBoy]

16 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Which cherries - post the bit your referring to.

 

Just as a side - you do know that your reference material is an undergraduate dissertation don’t you? 

Nope, it's your claim.

 

Demonstrate your claim ' they aren’t concluding or proving anything in terms of tangible impact '

 

First of all you'll need an agreement on what you mean by 'tangible impact'

 

Over to you.

 

 

[DnAuK]

We can all Google studies and ask people what they think of them, though, can't we? Here are a couple for you to look at:

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/27857-36-year-study-children-s-preference-for-gender-specific-toys-is-innate

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/gender-neutral-parenting-has-gone-far/

 

I’m not saying I agree strongly with one set of study or the other. From my experience I would say that, for the majority of all of us on this Forum, what our parents and our peers decided was suitable for us to play with as a child has had no discernible effect on our outcomes. I was born to very old fashioned parents who were both in the 40’s when I was born, and who lived through the war. As such I  was brought up with very clear ideas of what it meant to be a boy and a man. It was almost a blessing that my mother died before she found out I was gay, because she made it quite clear that she thought it was ‘disgusting’. However, all that served to do was make me more determined to pursue the life I chose for myself rather than  conform to her ideals.

 

That said, even judging by the comments on here, there are undoubtedly some who are influenced by such things and, as a society, we have a duty to protect our most vulnerable. So if doing something as simple as removing signs pointing children to what we expect them to play with helps some people, whilst causing absolutely no issues for the rest of the population, then isn’t it just common sense to do it?

[BrexitGuy]

3 minutes ago, DnAuK said:

We can all Google studies and ask people what they think of them, though, can't we? Here are a couple for you to look at:

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/27857-36-year-study-children-s-preference-for-gender-specific-toys-is-innate

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/gender-neutral-parenting-has-gone-far/

 

I’m not saying I agree strongly with one set of study or the other. From my experience I would say that, for the majority of all of us on this Forum, what our parents and our peers decided was suitable for us to play with as a child has had no discernible effect on our outcomes. I was born to very old fashioned parents who were both in the 40’s when I was born, and who lived through the war. As such I  was brought up with very clear ideas of what it meant to be a boy and a man. It was almost a blessing that my mother died before she found out I was gay, because she made it quite clear that she thought it was ‘disgusting’. However, all that served to do was make me more determined to pursue the life I chose for myself rather than  conform to her ideals.

 

That said, even judging by the comments on here, there are undoubtedly some who are influenced by such things and, as a society, we have a duty to protect our most vulnerable. So if doing something as simple as removing signs pointing children to what we expect them to play with helps some people, whilst causing absolutely no issues for the rest of the population, then isn’t it just common sense to do it?

I don't think it's common sense at all. Any sexual predudice around in the seventies has certainly made no effect on any of our same sex friends in our lives, and we are of that age too. People are free to make their own choices, even though there are signs throughout all walks of life, including the labelling of toys. I expect an individual would have to be a robot of they thought they should adhere to what's been around for ever x

[WiseOwl182]

2 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

Who said it is?

 

Do you disagree with the findings of the study?

No, I disagree with their unfounded extrapolation on to different conclusions by other posters seeking to shutdown any debate.

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I disagree with their unfounded extrapolation on to different conclusions by other posters seeking to shutdown any debate.

Huh, what does that mean?