@EdS that's true in a technical sense, but it's clear what they're aiming for in context. These aren't aesthetic choices in a vacuum and this has a very different intent than offering a steampunk variant, or a filigree variant, or a beige normcore version. I can't blame them for choosing to do this, but they could also... not.

I see what you're saying, and I'm not 100% sure of my position, but I wouldn't want to see "we can't have pink toys."

Those two toys are exactly the same shape and almost the same product name. One might argue they will appeal, and are meant to appeal, to two different recognisable sensibilities. But if they are side by side, and a child can choose whichever, isn't that fine?

(Previously, and similarly, two calculators, one being pink.)

I'm no gender theory expert...

@phooky

@phooky @EdS Hmm; but if it means that more girls like robots isn't that a good thing?

@penguin42 @EdS oof, this discussion. I'll just drop my salient points and skedaddle:
* we don't need to make gendered versions of toys
* there are a large number of people who will only purchase children's toys that are implicitly or explicitly coded to a gender
* making a gender-coded version of this robot will help to allow kids surrounded by those people to play with robots
* we still don't need to make gendered versions of toys

@phooky @EdS We need some science here; walk a Boston Dynamics 'Spot' into a classroom and see what they all think.

I do now see a hazard that this offering reinforces binary thinking in parents (and perhaps in children)

@phooky @penguin42