[B0ycey]

Being that a doll is an object, it has no gender. Let children dictate who their doll is and what they are. Why are company's trying to enforce prejudices onto children?

If a child wants a transgender doll, their imagination will allow them to do it for them. This is just confusing a child before pubity and sexualising them before they should know otherwise. I put this absurbness into the same bracket as mini-skirts, bikinis and make-up aimed at pre-teens.

Has society forgotten child innocence?

[Zagadka]

Maybe they should do it like Mr. Potato Head. Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. Just be able to plug in a dick and boobs and choose a wig.

[One Degree]

Being that a doll is an object, it has no gender. Let children dictate who their doll is and what they are. Why are company's trying to enforce prejudices onto children?

If a child wants a transgender doll, their imagination will allow them to do it for them. This is just confusing a child before pubity and sexualising them before they should know otherwise. I put this absurbness into the same bracket as mini-skirts, bikinis and make-up aimed at pre-teens.

Has society forgotten child innocence?

I am just responding because your comments deserve more than one post.

[Drlee]

Add me to that. B0ycey is correct.

It is time we let children be children.

And why under the heavens would someone undertake to explain to a six year old what a transsexual is? Perhaps in the very rare case that she/he had a brother or sister who is taking this dubious step...

Our more liberal friends are WAY on the wrong side of this one.

[Pants-of-dog]

This has nothing to do with liberalism; either type.

A doll making company is trying to cash in on Jazz's popularity and make some money.

[noir]

Add me to that. B0ycey is correct.

It is time we let children be children.

And why under the heavens would someone undertake to explain to a six year old what a transsexual is? Perhaps in the very rare case that she/he had a brother or sister who is taking this dubious step...

Our more liberal friends are WAY on the wrong side of this one.

The doll is probably for children who already have trans parent.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Childhood innocence is overrated. Especially when it comes to subjects like that. Children have a right to an honest view of the world that we rob them by trying to "protect" their innocence.

[Zagadka]

Well, once you've outlawed kickball and tag, you only have so many other options to rip out of the souls of kids and leave them vulnerable and terrified their entire lives.

[B0ycey]

Childhood innocence is overrated. Especially when it comes to subjects like that. Children have a right to an honest view of the world that we rob them by trying to "protect" their innocence.

There is a massive difference in having a frank discussion with a child about a sensitive subject and having the subject enforced onto the child by their bloody toys. Kids don't give a shit about the sex of their dolls. They just want to play with them. And if they want a transgender doll they have an imagination to make that work for them.

It's only corporations who want to impose sexual inappropriate subjects into children toys and confuse them into subjects that they would have little interest in prior to pubity for profitable reasons. And they do this to please liberal parents (who don't play with the toys) because they have an interest in such a subject.

Child innocence should not BE OVERRATED. Children should be protected from sexual exploration until they reach an age that they can fully understand it. And there is no spin that can justify incorporating such subjects into toys anyway. If the parents truely want to rob children of their innocence they should sit them down and talk to them. Not let corporations do it for them with their shitty toys.

[Drlee]

This has nothing to do with liberalism; either type.

Yes, I am afraid it does. Progressives frequently display the inability to say 'no' to outlandish ideas. If it is in any way new or iconoclastic there is some man-bun progressive who will fall on his sword over it. Of course anyone who disagrees with them is a something-ist.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

There is a massive difference in having a frank discussion with a child about a sensitive subject and having the subject enforced onto the child by their bloody toys. Kids don't give a shit about the sex of their dolls. They just want to play with them. And if they want a transgender doll they have an imagination to make that work for them.

It's only corporations who want to impose sexual inappropriate subjects into children toys and confuse them into subjects that they would have little interest in prior to pubity for profitable reasons. And they do this to please liberal parents (who don't play with the toys) because they have an interest in such a subject.

You're ok with Children imagining that they have a doll that is a transgender person but not ok with a company making it explicit. Doesn't make any sense to me. Also being a transgendered person is not sexually inappropriate because gender is not about sexual attraction but identification.

Child innocence should not BE OVERRATED. Children should be protected from sexual exploration until they reach an age that they can fully understand it.

Who is an easier target for sexual exploitation, a child that knows what sex is and that they can say no if someone wants to have sex with them or a child that has no idea what sex is and only knows to listen to adults? The problem with keeping children innocent as the end all be all goal is that innocent people are naive, and naiveté can be exploited.

However I will point out that this is a red herring because being a transgendered person has nothing to do with sexual exploitation.

And there is no spin that can justify incorporating such subjects into toys anyway. If the parents truely want to rob children of their innocence they should sit them down and talk to them. Not let corporations do it for them with their shitty toys.

Rob children of their innocence by exposing them to positive images of transgendered people? I suppose you're one of those people that think that children shouldn't know about gay people either lest they turn gay.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I am afraid it does. Progressives frequently display the inability to say 'no' to outlandish ideas. If it is in any way new or iconoclastic there is some man-bun progressive who will fall on his sword over it. Of course anyone who disagrees with them is a something-ist.

Wow. That is a whole lot of myths about progressives all piled one upon each other. Not much in the way of facts or logic, but whatever.

Am I wrong in pointing out that the people who made and distribute this doll are doing so for economic reasons?

I do not think so, as no one seems to disagree with that.

Is this an outlandish idea? It is a doll. Even if it outlandish, it is very low on the list of things to actually care about.

Is it new? Is it iconoclastic? I do not see it as either of these two things, as trans people have been around for ages and do not threaten anything we hold sacred. It is simply a doll.

But to address your misconceptions about progressives supporting things uncritically:

Did progressives support all those white kids who pretended to be black? No.

Do progressives support all those kids who want so desperately to be a minority that they decide they are trans. No.

We support the rights of actual trans people to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

Is that idea somehow outlandish, new, or iconoclastic? It should not be. It is, after all, one if the basic tenets of the type of government you supposedly champion.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Do progressives support all those kids who want so desperately to be a minority that they decide they are trans. No.

I'm surprised you would even stoop to accepting that supposed phenomenon is really a thing that happens. Personally I never believed that actually happens, I think it's sometimes that the idea that differences are ok make people act like they actually want to act. Sure it may seem like they're doing it to be cool or different, but I think most of the time they actually are different and use the knowledge that it's ok to be different to empower themselves.

I do agree with the gist of your post though, I never actually fit into those stereotypes of bleeding heart progressivism myself.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm surprised you would even stoop to accepting that supposed phenomenon is really a thing that happens. Personally I never believed that actually happens, I think it's sometimes that the idea that differences are ok make people act like they actually want to act. Sure it may seem like they're doing it to be cool or different, but I think most of the time they actually are different and use the knowledge that it's ok to be different to empower themselves.

I do agree with the gist of your post though, I never actually fit into those stereotypes of bleeding heart progressivism myself.

In my time, I have seen white kids pretend to be black.
I have seen them pretend to be Latino.
I have seen them pretend to be queer.
Pretend to be fetishists.
Pretend to be working class.
Pretend to be all sorts of things that would make them feel special.

I do not why these kids do it. It is not a lot of them, nor are they representative of middle class white kids.

So, while it is possible that there are no kids out there pretending to be trans just to get some minority cachet, it seems doubtful.

In the end, though, these kids are just an annoying but insignificant side effect of the trans struggle for equality.

[Brother of Karl]

Child innocence should not BE OVERRATED. Children should be protected from sexual exploration until they reach an age that they can fully understand it. And there is no spin that can justify incorporating such subjects into toys anyway. If the parents truely want to rob children of their innocence they should sit them down and talk to them. Not let corporations do it for them with their shitty toys.

Childhood as we know it is a fairly new concept. 200 years ago, children were considered small adults in many ways. If we're going to deny children's innocence, I say we do it the traditional way: by sending the boys off to work 12 hours a day in factories with no safety standards, and by marrying off the girls at age 12 to older men.

[B0ycey]

You're ok with Children imagining that they have a doll that is a transgender person but not ok with a company making it explicit. Doesn't make any sense to me. Also being a transgendered person is not sexually inappropriate because gender is not about sexual attraction but identification.

You don't get it do you. A doll is an object. It has no sex. It can be male , female or transgender. And no I don't think it's right to make a doll aimed at children be explicit. Because children want to play with it. Not be confused with it.

Who is an easier target for sexual exploitation, a child that knows what sex is and that they can say no if someone wants to have sex with them or a child that has no idea what sex is and only knows to listen to adults? The problem with keeping children innocent as the end all be all goal is that innocent people are naive, and naiveté can be exploited.

I didn't use the word 'exploitation' you just did. I said exploration. So much of this has no relevance to the point I was making. But I will address the point nonetheless. Sure highlights the dangers of predators to children. But do you really need to go into all the gory detail of rape and murder? Do you think a young mind will fully understand what you are talking about? Transgender is in some ways is similar to this. Explain to a child that a child or an adult feels that they want to be another sex if the subject comes up. Sure. No problem with that. But do you have to explain genitalia and sex operations to them when they are not old enough to fully understand what you are on about? And if you do want to explain what transgender is to a child, nobody should have to learn through their toys anyway. They should be sat down and explained everything so they can ask questions. Toys are a cop-out. They are an easy solution for parents to feel more comfortable not explaining uncomfortable subjects and for corporations to make money knowing this.

However I will point out that this is a red herring because being a transgendered person has nothing to do with sexual exploitation.

Ok? So why did you point it out? I too was confused? You openly admit you threw in a red herring? Who does that? Every rational mind knows transgender is about identity not exploitation.

Rob children of their innocence by exposing them to positive images of transgendered people? I suppose you're one of those people that think that children shouldn't know about gay people either lest they turn gay.

A doll is sexless. Get it? It is also a toy. We seem to be in a rush to grow children up and sexualise them these day from mini-skirts to make-up. And now sexual identity. I have no problem with positive images of transgender or gay people. I do have a problem when we promote sensitive subjects (and this includes anything) through toys. Until a child hits pubity, they do not know what sex they are attracted to by the way. As I said, where has child innocence gone? If you want to rob your children and sexualise them at a young age, go ahead. But sit them down and explain everything to them. Why do you need toys to do things for you?

[snapdragon]

My youngest daughter wanted a boy doll when she was small, so I bought her one for Christmas.

I didn't think it was a big deal.

[Frollein]

Neither does anyone else, so what's your point?

[Potemkin]

It is time we let children be children.

God forbid! The whole point of parental discipline is precisely to prevent children from "being children". Left to their own devices, children would create a world for themselves closely resembling the island in Lord of the Flies. You know I'm right, Drlee.

[B0ycey]

My youngest daughter wanted a boy doll when she was small, so I bought her one for Christmas.

I didn't think it was a big deal.

This has little point to the topic, but it did make me think. Can I ask, if your daughter asked for a doll with either a penis, breasts, pubic hair or testicles would that be a big deal? How about all of them on the same doll? If not why not? If so why? To me the issue is not the gender of the doll. It is after all down to imagination anyway (as a doll is an object so has no sex). It's that today we believe children should be able to make important decisions about sensitive issues without fully understanding what we are talking about. Toys should be neutral. And when they are not you have to wonder why and who does it actually benefit when they are not. The child or the parent.