Story

The only thing that makes LEGO a boy toy instead of a girl toy is because we tell ourselves it is because it isn't Barbie. While LEGO specifically has a series of sets directly targeting girls [...] Why define strict gender roles at home when they're going to be bombarded by it for the rest of their lives?

This. I recall my bafflement when LEGO first announced their "for girls" sets (minifigs with bumps and curves!). To quote one astute father's comment on the subject: "They already have LEGO for girls. They're called LEGO." They had science toys for girls way back when I was a girl and they were called science toys. I had a chemistry set, erector set, real (not toy) microscope, LEGO. There's nothing (or there should be nothing) gendered about these things.

That said, I laud the efforts of any company that attempts to counteract the "girls don't do x" and "boys don't do y" stereotyping that appears to be so overly prevalent in the children's toy industry. While for the moment, at least, it looks like those efforts may need to involve targeting toys in a different-from-the-usual way to shift the status quo, I welcome an end to gender-targeted toys and look forward to a time when children and adults can simply find their own personhood, whatever that might be, and not feel compelled to fit a particular socially-defined role.