Should children's toys be gendered?

Gender-specific toys are a relic of corporate greed

Question: Should children's toys be gendered?
Position‹2 of 2: No, toys should not be gendered
Argument‹2 of 3›: Gender-specific toys are a relic of corporate greed

Toymakers created a lucrative industry by aggressively distinguishing between girls' and boys' toys.

The argument

Until the 1940s, girls and boys often enjoyed the same gender-neutral toys. The toy industry realized that advertising separate toys for each gender would increase sales, and thus created a lucrative industry by aggressively distinguishing between girls' and boys' toys. Manufacturers also realized in the 1940s that wealthier families would buy entirely new sets of clothing, toys, and other products for their children of different genders if the products were marketed for boys and girls separately. So, instead of a family passing down their older children's clothes and toys down to younger children, regardless of gender, families would buy separate sets of toys for daughters and sons. Furthermore, gender-specific toys are actually hurting toy companies now more than they are helping them. One recent study of U.S. adolescents reported that 24% were either not heterosexual or not cisgender, so having toys that cater to those kids can improve business. Mattel is one example of a company that has been adjusting their product line to break away from gender norms, releasing a line of gender-neutral dolls that can be dressed up in a variety of hair and clothing styles. The new generations of parents are also moving away from gender-specific toys. In a 2017 study, more than 75% of those surveyed agreed that it's good for parents to encourage young girls to play with toys or do activities "associated with the opposite gender." Gender-specific toys are hurting toy companies more and more each day. These kinds of toys are a relic of corporate greed and have no place in our modern society.

Premises

[P1]Until the 1940s boys and girls played with the same gender-neutral toys, until the toy industry realized that marketing separate toys to each gender boosted sales. [P2] Separating products meant families bought entirely new sets for each child rather than passing them down, purely to enrich manufacturers. [P3] Today such toys hurt companies, as a quarter of adolescents are not heterosexual or cisgender and 75% of parents favour letting girls play with "opposite-gender" toys, prompting firms like Mattel to go gender-neutral. [C] Therefore, because gender-specific toys are a relic of corporate greed, toys should not be gendered.

Counter-arguments

The toy industry might have produced gendered toys as a means of furthering sales. However, that does not necessarily indicate that gendered toys are harmful.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The historical claim is offered without a source, and even granting it, that an industry found gendered marketing profitable does not show it created the demand rather than responding to attitudes already held by the parents buying the toys. [Rejecting P2] Motive is not harm. As the counter-argument puts it, that firms segmented the market to sell more does not by itself establish that the resulting toys damage anyone. [Rejecting P3] The commercial case cuts against the conclusion it is offered for. If gendered toys now cost companies money, the market corrects itself — which is precisely what the Mattel example describes — and no argument about how toys ought to be sold is needed to produce the change.