Trans widow and feel so much pain for her

Got you ))

I'm not sure what you are saying here? That the ad isn't gendered? Because there's only one child in the picture actually constructing anything and the implication to me, who lived through that time at that date, is that the boy built that little town and his sister plays with it.

No, I'm being deliberately sarcastic at the claims that Lego adverts always featured gender stereotypes.

Lego was a gender neutral toy for decades and gradually become more gendered. Although a lot of the adult sets today are gender neutral.

I can see a girl with a fire engine (?) and a boy building a building. Did you mean to post something else?

Sexist Lego advert showing girls building houses and boys playing with vehicles. But I'm sure someone will go on to say "but Subbuteo was aimed at boys, so Lego was sexist".

The comment was made in jest and referred to a comedy show. I dont need your condescending lecturing, thankyou very much. Read my other posts.

Yes but Lego won the marketing war hands down.

You won't be visiting a Meccano theme park any time soon and you'd have to find a rare toy store to be able to buy it in the high street.

Meccano was a construction toy which was displaced by Lego. For a while both were available but Lego won.

They are both still available.

I've already said those adverts had pictures of girls. They are all building houses, some open sided like a dolls house while the boys build fire trucks and bridges.n One has a girl with a house .... and a pram.

Meccano was a construction toy which was displaced by Lego. For a while both were available but Lego won.

Meccano was also for children. I used to play with my brother's set.

I have absolutely no idea why you seem to want to pick such a fight about this.

Meccano is not a ‘forerunner’ of LEGO - it is a different toy produced 50 years earlier. LEGO was produced specifically for children to just be children. The bricks were primary colours because the inventor was a pacifist. The very first adverts include girls building.

I've been looking up the 1950s adverts for Lego. They do feature girls. All the boys are building trucks, bridges, aeroplanes. Every picture of a girl I can find is building ...... a house, still the stereotype of "homemaker".

I'm another baffled and indeed furious that we started this century with gender stereotyping put firmly into a "that was back then" box but have moved solidly backwards now for years.

But not all of this is a trans generated problem, by any means. Lip fillers, bum padded pants and nail bars everywhere will tell you that much.

Jess has lost a life partner and friend, she has not regained one in the process. Jess needs lots of support for the life she thought she had but has had whipped away from her.

If Jess had lost Steve because he had an affair with a younger woman he would not be getting this 'sympathy' from you - because he has betrayed the family unit. But as he wants to pretend to be a woman that is fine - he should admired for being brave.

If Steve was a decent person he would have discussed with Jess beforehand, and walked out of the marriage for their sake and then transitioned. It sounds like he expected his wife to stick with him through this and they continue on 'as normal'. That is just so disrespectful to his family I have no words - only a man could think that is acceptable.

Steve will not care about the life before as he spends family money I suspect without Jess's knowledge or input (not his as he is married and that contract states it is a shared resource) thinking this lifestyle choice he has made will make him (and him alone) happy.

Lego was a Danish brand and they did definitely promote it as being for children with girls and boys in the advertising in the 80s. Now of course we are back to pink and purple Lego Friends for girls and black and grey Lego Star Wars for boys, which is a shame. Although, tbf, I dont think the advertising precludes either sex now at least. And if you go to a Lego Store it is very mixed gender and ages. My son works in one and, while the cars and spceships attract mainly boys, he says there are a few girl collectors too. And the Marvel stuff and ga.ing stuff is much more unisex, he says. And now there is Lego Botanicals for Mums! Again, the advertising seems pretty non-gendered to me, tbf to Lego.

Meccano, yes, very boyish. But I was a girl in the 80s and I still had Meccano, Lego, a model train set and airfix models, along with the Sindy house. There was definitely a lot more freedom to play with whatever appealed to you, in my house at least.

Sorry this is not much of a contribution to the actual topic of the thread but here's this ad for model railways to back up your point.

There was a very brief moment where children were allowed to be children rather than sugar/ spice/rats and snails, then the backlash began.

How old are you? When I was a child the forerunner of Lego, Meccano was emphatically a boys toy and in the early days of Lego I remember it being the same.

It was a construction toy and construction toys were for boys.

There was a story about a happily married man (I think he was a detective in a lot of high profile police cases and at times appears on TV), who then went through a rough patch where one child killed themselves climbing an electricity pylon.

Through all the grief he and others convincing him that the trauma was actually due to him being a "woman trapped in a man's body". He spent a lot of money on facial feminisation etc, and I think just before he was about to have the full sex change operation a moment of clarity and he realised that he was a heterosexual man and detransitioned.

Steve has blown up his marriage and his family, but I can't help to think that in 10 years time he will have desisted and then be desperate to reset everything. No doubt he will question why no one ever told him NO.

It’s certainly a sad situation, but it’s one with no happy options unfortunately. Either Steve is unhappy or is wife and your husband are.

Your friend does not have to remain in the marriage though.

Edit: sorry I saw the marriage had already broken down.

I totally agree but I also see what this poster is trying to say - that for hundreds of thousands of years, right back to homo erectus, early hominids and the original chimpanzees we diverged from, individual humans have always known the difference between male and female individuals of their species, that an individual is either a male or a female and that, in 99.999% of case the individuals everbody instinctively knows are males have a penis because of their male sex.

Removing it, losing it in an accident or having a hormonal processing disorder due to a generic mutation which means it didnt develop properly doesnt change the fact that that individual is male.

For some reason, for a brief period in human history, it became fashionable to pretend that humans had sexed souls and so you could end up male by mistake. Clearly bollocks, and cruel to all concerned, as we see on this thread, because instead of encoraging individuals to be happy in themselves, however they present, whatever their sexuality or interests or personality, we now have children being coerced into calling Daddy Mummy, instead of just having a Dad that happens to be gay.

It's understandable, I suppose, that men and boys fixate on the presence or absence of the appendage that obsesses so many of them. Meanwhile, they do their utmost to ignore the immensely complex female anatomy that brought every single one of them into existence, along with the other half of humanity. Out of sight, out of mind. Nasty messy stuff anyway. Obviously inferior to the nice simple male form.

😂oh yes, in our faces, boom!
I just don’t think I can match this level of insightful communication

The point is it is very misogynistic to consider women as men who are missing something. It goes along with the TRA fancy that ‘all foetuses are female’ because they lack a penis. We are male or female from the moment of conception and follow separate distinct developmental pathways from that moment. Women are not people who are missing something that makes men men.

.

@Soontobesleeping oh no, I thought it was because they’ve got big hooters 👃

Hopefully, she'll boot him out & he can live his life of fantasy elsewhere, to his heart's content.

Poor Jess & kids.

I'm saying that the difference between sexes can be simplified to the having/ not having an appendage. "No-tail" is a reference from the League of Gentlemen. Our genetic make up predisposes the set of genitals we get, so its not simply a case of " I will have a pretend penis and now I'm a man". Having a penis or a vagina is a manifestation of your genetic role in the reproductive process.

Equally, if you lose your dick you are not automatically become a woman (i can't believe I have to type this). Penis had to be there in the first place to be removed/ lost, and even if it is removed its still conspicuous by the signs of it being removed/ missing. I also appreciate there are males who are born without a penis (DSD) but this is rare, not the norm and they are still genetically male. Female born without a uterus is still a female, just, unfortunately, the one with some kind of illness/ genetic defect. If its MEANT to be there and its not there its not a "gotcha" moment - its just an unfortunate situation that happens throughout animal kingdom.