About Last Week… Nattering Nabobs of Naughtiness

Speaking of naughty, this column may be a bit itself, so a head’s up is in order.

On January 1, California stores will have to have gender neutral spaces, leading to a simple question:

What will Dick’s Sporting Goods do?

Okay, it’s true that the new gender-based shopping law, AB 1084 applies only to children’s toys, but we all know the idea will not stop there.

For this law, the response is simple: here, kid – have some Legos. Done.

That’s actually not far from the truth. Most toy departments in big stores already have such spaces for stuff that appeals to both boys and girls – those stores will simply put up a sign that says “gender neutral” over the aisle that has Nerf stuff and slip-and-slides and call it a day. Either that or just wait until transbarbie comes out – you know someone in Mattel’s DEI department has already pitched this idea, you just know it –  and give them their own aisle.

Said one such toy department manager:  

“There are no stereotypes here in any aisle. If a kid likes something, they like something.  Oh, and fun final piece about this. We had some stores put in gender neutral aisles last year as sort of a lead up to this, and sales in those areas were actually lower than other aisles. So not only is this a pointless thing to do, but it is also causing already hurting retail stores even more money. I can’t speak for every store statewide doing this of course, just what we saw from a decent sample size last year. So, if we see it, it means that we might just relegate that area to things kids like less.”

And baby-oriented stores are pretty much saying the same thing – they have gender neutral spaces already, first because tiny stuffed bears are pretty unisex and, second, because when people come in to buy a present for a baby shower they don’t know the gender (unless the parents are those awful dangerous people who have a potentially deadly “gender reveal party.”

Then there is the issue of defining gender and therefore, by extension, what is gender neutral.  There are, in case you are unaware, more than two genders – waaaaaay more – according to gender activists.  From ambigender to zerogender, are the other genders considered by the law not to be genders since it only mentions boys and girls and isn’t that in and of itself generderphobic?

Since people identify as zoogender – a gender related to nature/wildlife – shouldn’t pet stores be included? A similar question can be posed for xenoflora – florist shops?, starwashic – public beaches?, lexicgender, bookstores?, aesthetigender, museums?

The law is not only stupid and insulting and invasive (and genderphobic, it seems) but also pointless and replicative – so why do it?

That’s easy – because it’s the toy department of politics.

Laws like these are easy headline grabbers, take zero effort or thought, and occupy the minds of electeds so that the people who actually run the government can keep about their business of accruing power without any pesky oversight.

They are the shiny objects, the keys shaken in front of the baby.  

As a former elected, trust me on this. Would you rather just take a seemingly popular stance on a fleeting issue and roll around in the accolades or would you rather actually read and dissect the 489-page general plan update that will determine how your city will grow over the next five years?

Guess what most electeds choose?

And since it is true that success in politics and government is measured by activity rather than achievement it is very easy to fall into – or intentionally exploit – that trap of sound over service.

That’s why these kinds of bills proliferate, both on the left and the right, through far far more on woke/equitarian/communitarian side of the political circle because, well, you know why.

Ideology plays a role in these bills, certainly, but other than the fact that while they cause laughter, anger, and a deserved lessening of trust in government institutions at every level, they do not necessarily impinge on any existing structural power base.  They are “the grown ups are talking, go play in the yard” politics.

That is not to say they do not matter – the piling on of virtue laws weighs down all of society. One more thing to have to be cautious about , one more thing to look over your shoulder before speaking about. Add all of them up and general public timidity and obeisance grows.

Even more importantly, they tend not to stop where they start.  The history of government for the past, well, zillion years shows an inability to leave well enough alone, a trend that has gone to warp speed in the past few decades will little real progress made past initial effort.  

Take smog in southern California for example.  It was a very bad problem, changes were made, and now it’s essentially gone and that’s a good thing. But every government agency created to “solve” the problem is still around, still hoovering up money and power, still moving particulate standards from “parts per million” to “parts per billion,” still expanding their purview over less and less related more and more esoteric issues whenever they can to justify their existence.  From the above piece:

At what point, when very significant progress is made towards solving an essentially unsolvable problem – unless you eliminate most humans and dial the state of civilization back a few hundred years – is a government agency “done?”

In other words, when is government work good enough?  When have the returns diminished to the point where the effort is no longer needed?

Government agencies say the answer to that is “Never.”

And California is the national if not international trendsetter for very bad government and/or political ideas.  Think the gender neutral toy section is too absurd to come to your home?  Eight other states followed California’s lead in banning the sale of gas powered cars starting in 2030 – 

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/states-banning-new-gas-powered-cars/ .

In other words, this gender neutral concept will not stay in the toy department or relate only to children, a fact proven by the original bill having called for kids clothing to be included.  Onesies are onesies, but after that…a multitude of questions arise.

Will the state need to hire lingerie inspectors to figure out boy or girl or neutral for store placement?

Will hardware stores have to sell all of their extension cords with their ends plugged together to avoid that whole male/female thing?

Will Hasbro – named after three brothers – have to change its name to Hassiblings to be able to sell Monopoly in California?

To create true gender neutrality, will woman be forced to buy trucks and men Vespa’s?

Will men be banned from offering their seat on the bus or opening doors for women (by the way, gals, that’s done not just out of chivalry but also to let the guy have a long look without you noticing.)

As to adult stores, the leather elephant in the room as it were, the perils of mislabeling could lead to $500 fine after $500 fine after $500 fine every day. What could they put in the gender neutral aisle? Transgender pornography, one would assume, and vibrators (what were once euphemistically called “marital aids”), possibly, but would “real dolls” have to be made, um, interchangeable? And the sale of the vinyl gimp suits could also be a sticky matter as they need to be fitted personally (at least every dry cleaner would have to take them and that’s good…it’s such a pain to drive across town to the specialty shop.)

And speaking of Dick’s, what will sporting goods shop face? Selling only that unitard swimsuit, sports bras for men (actually, for come people not a bad idea though those who need one tend to be more sedentary,) hockey sticks that curve neither left nor right, soccer equipment that…oh, wait – that won’t be an issue.

Grocery stores will have to move the tampons from next to the diet aids to the beer cooler (ladies, watch out for that), and bookstores will have to mix copies of “The Heart Will Throb” in with Chilton guides to fixing a 1978 Oldsmobile.

The Clothing issue is surprisingly simple, though – Mao Suits for all:

Hmm…come to think of it, maybe that’s the been the whole point of all of this all along…

Thanks for reading the Globe!