Gender norms not so bad?
 

Thought-provoking read about the movement to make everything gender-neutral, I like his perspective and think he hit it spot-on.

Yes, Target, I Do Want My Daughter To Conform To Her Gender | TheBlaze.com

Oh Boy! Let the HATIN` begin!!!!!

I don't see a problem with their decision.

I gave my daughter a gender neutral name to give her half a chance on applications.

Some thing I thought was really cool. My daughter was auditioning for the Richmond city youth orchestra and it was blind. that is to say they would listen behind a curtain. all the conductors/instructors knew was a number.

Hope you packed a lunch.

Agreed. Who cares, let kids play with what they want to.

Let them do what they want! There's an evolutionary reason for gender differences - the gender neutral crowd must have skipped school when the day they covered evolution in like 5th grade. With that said, this is America; everyone is free to play with whatever they want last I checked.
The only "big deal" about this is how much of a big deal the gender neutral idiots have made out of it.

My daughter was born preemie by caeserian and she was rushed to the newborn ICU. By the time I got there from the operating room, she already had a pink bow stuck to her forehead with vaseline. I was pissed. There was nothing going on evolutionarily there. It was simply a message to the adults to make sure you treat these gender unidentifiable newborns as boys and girls. Sexist pigs in my view.

HA! HA! HA! Isn't the use of the term "daughter" itself an offensive sexist gender normative slur?????????? That person is nothing more than an offspring who is best defined as gender fluid being in metamorphosis, right? Bruce = Cait! Anybody can change who and what they "identify as" at any time, right? Isn't your sexist label really hate?

Yeah! Because the large majority of the human population recognizing and responding to the human experience across the millennia and billions of normal well adjusted functioning humans who make up the greater than 95% of the total human population that has ever existed; certainly must have ill will towards the mental illness delusions of the tiny fraction of deviant mutations that some tiny fraction of the overall newborns might eventually manifest!

The vast majority of normal people can't have their plain, clear and obvious gender cues recognized, affirmed and supported because there is an extremely small chance that a tiny few could mal-develop a "condition" that is outside the norm.

If only we could identify these abnormal deviant mutations sooner and label them better then we all could live and let live rather than forcing the vast majority to react and conform to the demands of the least normative amongst us.

Everything that the fewest amongst us are intolerant of must cease because if not everybody else who doesn't comply is a hater.

The rare chance that some small cohort of abnormals might be innocently and perhaps incorrectly presumed to be normal, is sexist?

I thought sex( defined by chromosomes and/or outwardly genitals) was different than "gender"(what people imagine they "feel" they better "identify" as), so how are people sexist because they respond to actual real physical manifestations of sexual identity rather than ignoring that evidence and pretending that it's somehow likely that the evidence before them is meaningless and that some slim possibility of a later manifesting delusionary state should reign supreme in logic?

If anybody was concerned about their spawn being labeled before that spawn entered the real world why wouldn't they simply ask the professionals to avoid differentiating that spawn based upon all the tangible evidence before them? I mean if it matters and people think it matters why wouldn't they let the professionals they are involved with know what matters most to them?

While I think the whole movement to erase gender is irritating, this guy's take on it is pretty uninspiring. He has a lot to say about what's normal without any particular use of science, sociology, history, biology, psychology, etc. Other than the cracking use of his two children as a representative for all mankind through history.
Yes, there are differences between girls and boys, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you ask me toy stores have gotten over the top with the pink, glittery purgatory they call the girls' section, so I'm not sad to see that dialed down. It wasn't really like that when I was a kid. If it had been I might have ended up with a gender identity problem too ... I mean if someone had told me I was disturbed because I wanted a Transformer, I probably would have thought, oh, I must not be meant to be a girl. I never thought of myself as less of a girl because I wanted to play with cars (same story 30 years later). Maybe it was a little weird but no one cared.
Target is making too much of a "statement" with this move if you ask me, but I think it's a fine idea. People are still free to pick out whichever toys they want for their child.

If you are unhappy with this trend then dig up Sam Walton and yell at him.

Walton once said that the biggest gamble he ever took was to build a giant warehouse/distribution center. His Nerds told him that he was being eaten up with inventory costs and even worse the cost of moving the inventory. So they streamlined the system and one of the things to go was the placing of some of the toys in the girls and boys sections. If a toy is hot enough the parents will find it if it is just in the toy section.

The first year the savings were in the millions.

There is still some of this boy/girl inventory at WalMart stores but everyone in the industry could see that doing away with some of it was a money saver. Target is just taking it to the next level and will save a few million a year by not juggling shelf space. Now there is no need to figure out what toy goes where. It goes in the toy section and the inventory costs are lower because a department is not costing as much to run.

Clothing is still going to be determined by sex since there are two types of human bodies and clothes need to be made that fit them. The fashion industry would need to change to do away with size norms and I don't see any savings for them if they do so.

Follow the money.

Not putting colored ribbons on newborns' heads would save hospitals a little money. I'm thinking the reason we do it is that we are programmed to respond to males and females differently. Not knowing which way to behave is confusing and disorienting at a minimum because people wouldn't know which pronouns to use. I'd vote in favor of a gender neutral pronoun addition to the language.

And what would be your very own special unique Snowflake pronoun that you've been denied the right to all these decades of oppression you've suffered?

Because I'm sure there are more than a few that might read this and who would want to cast their own precious votes to right the blatant injustice of gendercide(aka Binary Gender Supremacy) that stains us all.

I feel so strongly about it I'm not going to even put my own personal favorite up for consideration, whatever you think works best I'm going to vote for also.

We have gender-neutral pronouns in our language already.

Agree. People tell little girls that they're pretty and little boys that they're tough or strong. So if that's the compliment you're supposed to get, you never want to be plain or ugly if you're a girl, or vulnerable or "weak" if you're a boy. It dictates what children think they should try to be or become and so how they prioritize things later in life (toughness or being pretty at all times).

The pink stuff is crazy. I had the same experience as Bodhi growing up and I'm always alarmed by how dumbed down girls' toys are too. But the pink is just god awful.

When I have kids I will probably ask people to give things that are gender neutral colors like orange and yellow and green.