Hello ‘new Barbie’. ?

Thanks I'll take a look.

Smileless2012

That would be a good topic for a new thread Doodledog.

Thank you. It's in Education, for those who don't use 'Active Topics' to find threads.

The OP is probably a bit muddled, as the topic is very broad, so please bear with me, and pick and mix answers, or add questions of your own?

That would be a good topic for a new thread Doodledog.

VioletSky

Some generations really do go to great lengths to offend themselves....

This is why we need acceptance and open mindednes taught in education.... So that future generstions are happier

What has generation to do with this?

And how does one offend oneself?

The question of whether 'education' (which you seem to be conflating with indoctrination, although you will almost certainly tell me that I am misquoting you) should be telling children things with which their parents disagree is too big for this thread.

I'll start a new one asking how far 'education' (a very broad term at best) should have such a role, who 'educates' the educators and to what extent parents should have a say in what their children are taught.

That would explain my confusion.

That's photoshopped and nothing to do with Mattel.

Thinking of copying my post about critical thinking.

Some generations really do go to great lengths to offend themselves....

This is why we need acceptance and open mindednes taught in education.... So that future generstions are happier

Not sure if Google’s my friend because now I’m confused. This latest addition to the Barbie family is not first transgender.

Google is your friend.

If you think its that important.

Having never seen the astronaut Barbie I had no idea if it was obvious, clearly it is but the trans Barbie isn't is it, so is it being stated on the packaging?

Another excellent post Doodledog.

Smileless2012

I think it's virtue signalling and a money making ploy DiamondLily. Interesting point about what it may say on the box.

No need to explain on the packaging for wheelchair or black Barbie. Possibly for astronaut Barbie as that may not necessarily be recognisable for everyone.

Multi million dollar manufacturing company in money making ploy.

Imagine.

Why else do you think they make and market dolls?

Personally, I think I would have guessed this was an astronaut.

DiamondLily

Yes, it is. And I still don't understand what the point of politicising a doll is.?

It's all part of the drip effect. It seems to be saying that TWAW (Trans Women Are Women), and as it is indistinguishable from a female doll it is pandering to autogynephiles. A child playing with this doll (if s/he knows that it is a TransBarbie) will pick up the message that 'gender' is the same as sex, which is untrue. I'd be very interested to know whether 'ordinary' transpeople (ie those who just want to live as though they were members of the opposite sex, and are not invested in all the 'gender' stuff) feel about it.

Also, IMO it is one thing to have an astronaut Barbie and a Rosa Parks one, or whatever; but are children (and remember that this is a doll, marketed to the very young), really able to understand the intricacies of gender politics? They are difficult enough for adults to get their heads around.

When my daughter was Barbie age (about 5-7) all her different Barbies ended up interchangeable, however they started out. They shared outfits and were bathed, taken on car journeys and shopping trips, and looked like they'd slept in a hedge after a year or so. If she'd had TransBarbie, it would have met a similar fate, I'm sure. The only difference between it and Bikini Barbie or Boardroom Barbie would have been that she would have wanted to know why it was a Trans one, and (speaking for myself) I wouldn't want to have that conversation around a supposedly male doll that is indistinguishable from a supposedly female one, as I feel that it sends completely the wrong message and is anything but neutral on the subject of trans issues.

Wherever you (generic) stand on the subject, doesn't this seem to be a very on-sided view? I'm not saying that children need to be 'shielded' from transpeople, but that there is plenty of time to discuss the politics when they are old enough to understand, and that it's not a simple subject that can be dealt with by giving them a doll to play with.

I had a black doll when I was a child and a white (pink) one the same size. They were dressed in similar outfits which my Mum knitted.
I called them my twins.

Interesting that, many years later, there were twins featured on the front of National Geographic, one black, one white.

I think it's virtue signalling and a money making ploy DiamondLily. Interesting point about what it may say on the box.

No need to explain on the packaging for wheelchair or black Barbie. Possibly for astronaut Barbie as that may not necessarily be recognisable for everyone.

volver

^virtue signalling idea^

Yes, just like the astronaut one, or the one in a wheelchair, or the black one. Maybe they are virtue signalling. But this one is no worse than any of the others.

Well, to be fair, there are black children, at the right age of playing with them, and there are disabled children in wheelchairs of that age group.

So, I get that they might like a doll that sort of looks like them.

This doll just looks like every other Barbie.

The Astronaut one was just one in a range of "different jobs" Barbie, with an outfit.

I don't know many five year olds running around shouting they're in the wrong body...the discussion wouldn't have happened in most households.

Role models.

Yes, it is. And I still don't understand what the point of politicising a doll is.?

virtue signalling idea

Yes, just like the astronaut one, or the one in a wheelchair, or the black one. Maybe they are virtue signalling. But this one is no worse than any of the others.

Its a dolly. Children might want to play with it. They might not.

They don't have to know that the person it's based on is trans. They just have to think its a nice dolly.

I don't get it. I assume the box is labelled (?), but, other than that, it looks like a "female pop star Barbie".

So, any conversation about trans wouldn't really happen - to young children, it would just look like Barbie.?. There have been many different models - Action Girl Barbie, Barbie Princess etc

Unless it has male genitals, kids wouldn't even notice, so the impact, if that's what's intended, would be zilch.

Seems like just another virtue signalling idea, or a money making one to sell a different model.?

They'd have to know that the doll is trans and what that means, so while I agree it would be a wonderful thing to be a child who has no pre-conceptions about trans people I don't think that this will achieve that.

For any child who wants one, the fact that it's a representation of a trans woman will be neither here of there.

Isn't that good. What a wonderful thing to be a child who has no pre-conceptions about trans people.

I think that's why I preferred Sindy Kandinsky the way she looked was more realistic and achievable, not that I ever managed it.

Clearly a marketing ploy IMO. As has been said, for the children who play with it, it's just another Barbie and I agree with Bluebelle's earlier post that it will be purchased by adults ticking a box.

For any child who wants one, the fact that it's a representation of a trans woman will be neither here of there.

In the days when life was simple...?

It’s funny though, because even at a young age I preferred Sindy to Barbie.
Barbie always seemed a bit tarty to me ( & I was only about 7 or 8 ) Sindy seemed ‘nicer’ more normal somehow.
I’m only saying this because even if you’re only 7 or 8 doesn’t mean you can’t make judgements about what toys mean to you.
Regarding a fat Barbie with tattoos - I think the whole idea of the Barbie doll was to ‘want to be her’ or have her as your best friend. Very few young girls aspire to be fat with tattoos. Even if they eventually end up that way.