Can you please help me articulate the issues with this? Jigsaw

It sounds like B is an early adopter of the non binary identity, and the others are "cis"

So it's labelling a preference from an early age.

And also labelling toys as being gendered.

What it needs to do is say everyone can dress how they like and play with anything they want. Fin.

What it actually says is a load of sexist rubbish that just reinforces stereotypes, and would tell kids who don't conform that they must be some kind of third gender. Which then opens up into a world of gender identities/pronouns/flags going onto trans/blockers/hormones/surgery.

I'm so bloody glad the school I'm applying to for DD next year aren't associated with this crap.

It actually reinforces stereotypes.

All kids can play with all toys, end of.

Have you checked SSAUK, may be some guidance

I doubt many parents would be happy with that, and most classes under that strict stereotypical thinking would have the majority of their kids apparently 'non conforming'. Not because they need to transition but of this ridiculous political shite that 'proper girls like x' and 'proper boys like y' and if you don't get in those boxes here are the boxes you shall be stuffed in.

It's appalling. limiting, restricting, subordinating girls and stifling their freedoms and sense of self and independence while trying to separate the boys into the acceptably manly and not acceptably manly groups. It's hurling progress into reverse for both sexes to indulge grown ups with a political agenda to sell. Schools should absolutely not be passing those grown ups' issues on to kids.

It should have said something genderless like some children like to play with dolls, some children like to play with cars, some children like to play with both and all have lots of fun!!! And show pictures of clearly boys, clearly girls and children who look androgynous playing with everything

The mere fact that it keeps emphasising "girl's toys" and "boy's toys" is upsetting.....

The “Oh no, B is crying” slide makes no sense if we don’t know B’s sex. Why would children laugh at someone who might be a boy playing with boys or someone who might be a girl for playing with dolls?

It would make more sense if we knew B’s sex and could thus call out the bullying for non conformity to gendered expectations.

Or if we want to examine whether B should play with people of either sex or toys where there are gender expectations, there’s no need to imply B was bullied. It’s setting out a false situation because they’re so obsessed with gender identity and not really in challenging sex stereotypes.

I take particuar issue with the fact that the ball is seen as a boys toy.
Are the girls not allowed to play with the ball unless they declare themselves transgender?
The girls only get a doll? The girls get only one toy and the boys get two?

We don't even get a jigsaw ffs.

The mere fact that they start with ‘Billy wants to play with boy’s toys’ is compounding stereotypes. Children will hear that and will think there ARE boys toys and girls toys.

I think it is rubbish due to having a stereotypical boy and a stereotypical girl. And indeed that you have to be gender nonconforming to play with both toys types.

I would focus on the ridiculousness of sex stereotypes, how much fun it could be had with both “boy toys” and “girl toys” and how sad for the children who stupidly excluded half of the available toys due to prejudice and sex stereotypes.

It's rubbish because the drawing of B is identifiable as a boy, not an ambiguous genderless child.

It suggests you have to be gender non-conforming to like both boys and girls toys.

A better resource might have had Bella, looking very obviously girl, liking boys toys, and Billy, obviously boy, liking girls toys and so making the point that toys are for everyone, you don't need to change whether you are a girl or a boy.