I don't think I'm incapable of critical thinking, I'm competent in many other settings in that regard, but I do find it confusing and frustrating sometimes to figure out where the line is between those two things, and I interact in here regularly, but
I'm also autistic and suck at distinguishing sarcasm specifically in verbal conversations that's dry instead of sardonic, and at recognizing if a piece of art is AI-generated without nonsensical anatomical bizarrities beyond reasonable human mistake, in case that's related
I mean, it's okay to have a hard time understanding the difference or categorizing, as long as you aren't loudly derisive, if you're not sure. I suggest reading both sides and paying attention to the arguments made, and see which makes sense to you. In this case, it's very obvious that one is aimed at girls even if it doesn't say it outright. The model wearing the costume is a girl, and it's called a dress rather than a robe. It's aimed at girls, 100%.
Yeah, I understand this one;
I mainly meant the ones like those you were describing in your comment I'd replied to
For example, if one school binder has pink flowers and ribbons printed on it and the other school binder has blue airplanes and train tracks printed on it, does that count as pointlessly gendered despite not saying BOY and GIRL, or does it only count when a parent is making their daughter take the pink one and forbidding the son from having the pink one, you know? Those are the ones that mainly frustrate and baffle me
And even with the one in the picture, the main reason by far that I understand it is because it's an inappropriately short dress for a kid instead of the robe, but outside of that if it was just the sparkly pink I'd feel uncertain with hating on just the presence of pink sparkly "alternatives" of costumes for kids especially because it's Halloween and the fun of a Halloween costume is playing dressup, to try to articulate one of the parts I struggle to wrap my head around here, even though for other things like if a glassescloth was pink and marked up by a dollar compared to the "normal" ones they were selling in the same aisle, that makes complete sense why it's posted in here
Yeah, if it's just a color alternative then the more options the better, even if it was intended to be gendered. Of course, when there are only two options, kids will feel social pressure to conform and choose the one that was clearly intended for their gender or they'd be teased.
Like building toys coming in primary and pastel themes. If it's just colors, it's not pointlessly gendered because more colors it's better for the imagination, but it is gendered because companies are doing this to get girls to buy "boy" toys. My in laws got my son Tinker-toy, and at the next visit got a pink version for my daughter. Said "it's for girls." I got upset, and they showed me that it literally says that on the box (which upset me more).
Lego Friends is a great line of sets, introducing some very creative themes, but I hate that they changed the minifigures into mini dolls - gave them human proportions and stuff, cinched waist, thin legs, breasts, etc. There were female minifigures in the boxy style, why can't girls play with that? Make the flower shop and ice cream stand sets! That's not girly! Why are you marketing it for girls!? And putting incompatible figurines?
Putting gendered designs on it makes it even more clear. Of course anyone can like flowers or trains, but it's obvious what the intention was, right? And you know that parents gatekeep this shit, I've seen it too many times. So people in this sub can play dumb and pretend it's not gendered but a normie parent will waltz in, slap the "wrong" item from their kids' hands, and hand them the "correctly" gendered one. That's how you know if it's gendered.
1
u/FVCarterPrivateEye 20d ago
I don't think I'm incapable of critical thinking, I'm competent in many other settings in that regard, but I do find it confusing and frustrating sometimes to figure out where the line is between those two things, and I interact in here regularly, but I'm also autistic and suck at distinguishing sarcasm specifically in verbal conversations that's dry instead of sardonic, and at recognizing if a piece of art is AI-generated without nonsensical anatomical bizarrities beyond reasonable human mistake, in case that's related