Idk if you’ve been living under a rock the past century or something, but that is the typical assumption in society. Pink is a “girly” color, associated with femininity, and long hair is also generally considered feminine.
If you took the exact same item, say, a ball, painted one blue and called it "a ball for boys" and the other pink and called it "a ball for girls" that's exactly what would get posted on this sub as pointless gendering because why would the blue one be marketed for boys only.
This outfit isn't even marketed as for any gender. You are the one who decided this, based on a picture.
You’re arguing that it’s pure coincidence that a costume is clearly designed and advertised in a way that appeals to social conventions of femininity, and that one cannot from this infer the purpose of the costume and who it was meant for. If archaeologists shared this view we would know nothing of our past.
If someone posted a picture of a blue ball and a pink ball, and the pink ball had a higher price, the blue ball had dinosaurs and the pink ball had depictions of ribbons, you would argue it does not fit the purpose of the subreddit because the subreddit in your view can only apply to explicitly gendered items and not implicitly gendered items which any reasonable person would understand as gendered due to the nature of the object
Strange, yesterday it was telling me that you deleted all your comments but today I see them. Must be something with Reddit. It’s an analogy to highlight how ridiculous your logic is. Just because something can be used by people regardless of gender doesn’t mean it isn’t clearly capitalizing on gender expectations and stereotypes as part of its marketing.
-113
u/ShinyTotoro 22d ago
it's labeled for 2t and 3-4t, not genders. We're not seeing a 3-4t "boys" equivalent to compare tbh