Should children's toys be gendered?

The absence of gendered toys would threaten the toy industry

Question: Should children's toys be gendered?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, toys should be gendered
Argument‹2 of 3›: The absence of gendered toys would threaten the toy industry

The production of gender-specific toys lends irreplaceable support to the economy.

The argument

The toy industry is lucrative, partly because of gender-specific toy popularity. If gender-neutral toys became a standard, the industry would make less money, because families would not feel inclined to buy multiple sets of toys for their children of different genders. The toy industry's profits would decrease, resulting in the loss of countless jobs. The toy industry should continue marketing gender-specific toys because eliminating this practice would hurt the economy.

Premises

[P1]The toy industry is lucrative partly because of the popularity of gender-specific toys. [P2] If gender-neutral toys became standard, families would no longer buy multiple sets for children of different genders, cutting profits. [P3] Falling profits would cost countless jobs and hurt the economy. [C] Therefore, because the absence of gendered toys would threaten the toy industry, toys should be gendered.

Counter-arguments

The toy industry does not have to stop producing gender-specific toys. They can continue making toys that appeal to traditionally masculine and feminine sensibilities. The toy industry merely needs to stop advertising their toys in such a rigidly gendered way. In this way, toy manufacturers could profit from gender-specific toys, while refraining from limiting a child's ability to choose their toys freely.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That gendered marketing is what makes the industry lucrative is asserted without figures, and the popularity of particular toys is not the same as the popularity of the way they are labelled. [Rejecting P2] Families buying one set instead of two is a change in what is bought, not necessarily a fall in what is spent — and the counter-argument notes that manufacturers can keep making the same toys while changing only how they are advertised. [Rejecting P3] Even granting the commercial harm, an industry's revenue is not a reason a practice ought to continue. The argument as stated would license any profitable practice whatever its effect on children, which is the question the position is supposed to answer.