Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England

Imagine this: a band removes its entire music catalogue off Spotify in protest, only to discover an AI-generated impersonator has replaced it. The impersonator offers songs that sound much like the band’s originals.

The imposter tops Spotify search results for the band’s music – attracting significant streams – and goes undetected for months.

As incredible as it sounds, this is what has happened to Australian prog-rock band King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard

In July, the band publicly withdrew its music from Spotify in protest at chief executive Daniel Ek’s investments in an AI weapons company.

Within months, outraged fans drew attention to a new account called “King Lizard Wizard”.

It hosted AI-generated songs with identical titles and lyrics, and similar-sounding music, to the original band. (And it isn’t the first case of a fake Spotify account impersonating the band).

The fake account was recommended by Spotify’s algorithms and was reportedly removed after exposure by the media.

This incident raises crucial questions: what happens when artists leave a platform, only to be replaced by AI knockoffs? Is this copyright infringement? And what might it mean for Spotify?

As an Australian band, King Gizzard’s music is automatically protected by Australian copyright law. However, any practical enforcement against Spotify would use US law, so that’s what we’ll focus on here.

Is this copyright infringement?

King Gizzard has a track called Rattlesnake, and there was an AI-generated track with the same title and lyrics.

This constitutes copyright infringement of both title and lyrics. And since the AI-generated music sounds similar, there is also potential infringement of Gizzard’s original sound recording.

A court would question whether the AI track is copyright infringement, or a “sound-alike”. A sound-alike work work may evoke the style, arrangement or “feel” of the original, but the recording is technically new.

Legally, sound-alikes sit in a grey area because the musical expression is new, but the aesthetic impression is copied.

Read more:
Taylor Swift’s Father Figure isn’t a cover, but an ‘interpolation’. What that means – and why it matters

To determine whether there is infringement, a court would examine the alleged copying of the protected musical elements in each recording.

It would then identify whether there is “substantial similarity” between the original and AI-generated tracks. Is the listener hearing a copy of the original Gizzard song, or a copy of the band’s musical style? Style itself can’t be infringed (although it does become relevant when paying damages).

Some might wonder whether the AI-generated tracks could fall under “fair use” as a form of parody. Genuine parody would not constitute infringement. But this seems unlikely in the King Gizzard situation.

A parody must comment on or critique an original work, must be transformative in nature, and only copy what is necessary. Based on the available facts, these criteria have not been met.

False association under trademark law?

Using a near-identical band name creates a likelihood of consumers being confused regarding the source of the AI-generated music. And this confusion would be made worse by Spotify reportedly recommending the AI tracks on its “release radar”.

The US Lanham Act has a section on unfair competition which distils two types of liability. One of these is false association. This might be applicable here; there is a plausible claim if listeners could reasonably be confused into thinking the AI-generated tracks were from King Gizzard.

To establish such a claim, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate prior protectable trademark rights, and then show the use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.

The defendant in such a claim would likely be the creator/uploader of the AI tracks (perhaps jointly with Spotify).

What about Spotify?

Copyright actions are enforced by rights-holders, rather than regulators, so the onus would be on King Gizzard to sue. But infringement litigation is expensive and time-consuming – often for little damages.

As Spotify has now taken down the AI-generated account, copyright litigation is unlikely. The streaming platform said no royalties were paid to the fake account creator.

Even if this case was successfully litigated against the creator of the fake account, Spotify is unlikely to face penalties. That’s because it is protected by US “safe harbour” laws, which limit liability in cases where content is removed after a platform is notified.

This example demonstrates the legal and policy tensions between platforms actively promoting AI-generated content through algorithms and being “passive hosts”.

Speaking on the King Lizard incident, a Spotify representative told The Music:

Spotify strictly prohibits any form of artist impersonation. The content in question was removed for violating our policies, and no royalties were paid out for any streams generated.

In September, the platform said it had changed its policy about spam, impersonation and deception to address such issues. However, this recent incident raises questions regarding how these policy amendments have translated into changes to the platform and/or procedures.

This is a cautionary tale for artists – many of whom face the threat of their music being used in training and output of AI models without their consent.

For concerned fans, it’s a reminder to always support your favourite artists through official channels – and ideally direct channels.

Wellett Potter is a member of the Copyright Society of Australia and the Asia Pacific Copyright Association.

– ref. King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard quit Spotify in protest, only for an AI doppelgänger to step in – https://theconversation.com/king-gizzard-and-the-lizard-wizard-quit-spotify-in-protest-only-for-an-ai-doppelganger-to-step-in-271735

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher, Digital Wellbeing, Western Sydney University

As Australia’s ban on under-16-year-olds having certain social media accounts kicks in this week, debate on whether it’s a good idea or even legal rages on – both at home and overseas.

Yet barely acknowledged in this debate is what happens when a child doesn’t have an account, yet their entire childhood is still documented online. Should this be permitted?

“Sharenting” – when parents share their children’s lives online – entered the dictionary a few years ago. Awareness of potential risks has been increasing, but many parents still routinely share pictures and videos of their children online.

Sharenting is widespread and persistent. A review of practices over the past ten years describes that parents commonly share details such as children’s names, dates of birth, birthday parties, milestones (birthdays, school achievements), health info and photos. This produces a “digital identity” of the child long before they can consent.

And it’s not just parents. Dance schools, soccer clubs and various other community groups, as well as family members and friends, commonly post about children online. All contribute to what’s essentially a collective digital album about the child. Even for children not yet old enough to have their own account, their lives could be heavily documented online until they do.

This challenge moves us well beyond traditional approaches to safety messages such as “don’t share your personal details online” or “don’t talk to strangers”. It requires a deeper understanding of what exactly safety and wellbeing for children on online platforms looks like.

A passive data subject

Here’s a typical sharenting scenario. A family member uploads a photo captioned “Mia’s 8th birthday at Bondi beach!” to social media, where it gets tagged and flooded with comments from relatives and friends.

Young Mia isn’t scrolling. She isn’t being bullied. She doesn’t have her own account. But in the act of having a photo and multiple comments about her uploaded, she has just become a passive data subject. Voluntarily disclosed by others, Mia’s sensitive information – data on her face and age – exposes her to risks without her consent or participation.

The algorithm doesn’t care Mia is eight years old. It cares that her photo keeps adults on the app for longer. Her digital persona is being used to sustain the platform’s real product: adult attention. Children’s images posted by family and friends function as engagement tools, with parents reporting that “likes” and comments encourage them to continue sharing more about their child.

We share such posts to connect with family and to feel part of a community. Yet a recent Italian study of 228 parents found 93% don’t fully realise the associated data harvesting practices that take place, and their risk to the child’s privacy, security and image protection.

A public narrative of one’s life

Every upload of a child’s face, especially across years and from multiple sources, help create a digital identity they don’t have control over. Legally and ethically, many frameworks attempt to restrict commercial data profiling of minors, but recent studies show profiling is still happening at scale.

By the time a child is 16 – old enough to create their own account – a platform may already have accumulated a sizeable and lucrative profile of them to sell to advertisers.

The fallout isn’t just about data; it’s personal. That cute birthday photo can resurface in a background check for future employment or become ammunition for teenage bullying.

More subtly, a young person forging their identity must now contend with a pre-written, public narrative of their life, one they didn’t choose or control.

New laws aiming to ban children from social media address real harms such as exposure to misogynistic or hateful material, dangerous online challenges, violent videos, and content promoting disordered eating and suicide – but they focus on the child as a user. In today’s data economy, you don’t need an account to be tracked and profiled. You just need to be relevant to someone else who has an account.

What can we do?

The essential next step is social media literacy for all of us. This is a new form of literacy for the digital world we live in now. It means understanding how algorithms shape our feeds, how dark design patterns keep us scrolling, and that any “like” or photo is a data point in a vast commercial machine.

Social media literacy is not just for kids in classrooms, but for parents, coaches, carers and anyone else engaging with kids in our online world. We all need to understand this.

Sharenting-awareness campaigns exist, from eSafety’s parental privacy resources, to the EU-funded children’s digital rights initiative, but they are not yet shifting the culture. That’s because we’re conditioned to think about our children’s physical safety, not so much their data safety. Because the risks of posting aren’t immediate or visible, its easy to underestimate them.

Shifting adult behaviour closes the gap between our concerns and our actions, and the reality of children’s exposure to content on social media.

Keeping children safe online means looking beyond kids as users and recognising the role adults play in creating a child’s digital footprint.

Joanne Orlando receives funding from NSW state government.

– ref. If social media for kids is so bad, should we be allowed to post kids’ photos online? – https://theconversation.com/if-social-media-for-kids-is-so-bad-should-we-be-allowed-to-post-kids-photos-online-271387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Thompson, Lecturer in Theatre, Australian Catholic University

If you were scouting about for a feature documentary subject, porridge might not be the first thing you’d think of. That is, unless you were Australian opera and theatre director turned documentary film maker, Constantine Costi, who has struck gold with his new documentary, The Golden Spurtle.

Now, I’ll admit to not knowing what a spurtle was before watching this documentary. (But now that I know, I’ve added one to my Christmas list.)

According to the Dictionaries of the Scots Language, a spurtle is “a short, round stick used for stirring porridge”.

Generally, they’re made of wood, but once a year in the Scottish Highlands’ village of Carrbridge, a much-coveted golden spurtle is awarded to the winner of the World Porridge Making Championships. The setting for Costi’s documentary is the 2023 competition – the contest’s 30th year.

Porridge makers from all over the world arrive in Carrbridge each October to compete. They must make the best porridge from just three ingredients: oats, salt and water.

And 2023 was particularly significant because it was the year Charlie Miller – unofficial mayor of Carrbridge, avid spurtle maker and self-proclaimed chieftain of the Golden Spurtle since 1994 – was stepping down. If this film has a star, Miller is it.

Shot like a moving photograph

Costi and cinematographer Dimitri Zaunders have made strong cinematic choices that allow this story to tell itself.

First they’ve shot it in an aspect ratio of 4:3 – a pre-widescreen format evoking an “old-school” visual feeling reminiscent of 1950s films and other old video and television formats.

Secondly, there’s no camera movement. Every scene is shot with a “locked-off” camera, giving everything a framed, photographic feel. This style relies on what we see within the frame being compelling enough to hold our attention without the enhancement of camera or editing techniques.

For the most part, this suits the subject matter. The scenery around Carrbridge and its quaint architecture are beautiful enough without needing to be tricked up in any way, and the personalities of the characters are quite magnetic.

Still, about halfway through the 75-minute runtime, the sameness of the visual style becomes (for me at least) dynamically inert. Then again, often that feeling was countered by something unexpected or funny happening within the locked-off frame.

A captivating cast and secret recipes

We meet several of the contestants over the course of the film, including Ian Bishop (the only local ever to win), Lisa Williams (a back-to-back winner known as The Queen of Porridge), Nick Barnard (a serious man who seriously wants to win after being a seven-time finalist) and Toby Wilson (an Australian taco chef who’s back for a second crack).

These characters are as idiosyncratic as the competition itself, and just as passionate.

If there’s one thing missing, it’s insight into the porridge-making process itself and how the judges make their decisions.

What makes a winning bowl of porridge? What difference do different kinds of oats make? Do you simmer or rapid boil? Should your spurtle stir clockwise or anticlockwise? Do the judges look for taste, or texture, or consistency, or other factors?

The closest the film comes to focusing on these questions is when an off-camera voice asks Ian Bishop which oats he will be using, to which he simply replies: “Why would I want to tell you? Other people would get to know.”

In October of this year, Melbourne food stylist Caroline Velik returned triumphant from the 32nd championship, having won the Speciality Dish Category.

I guess that’s another thing missing from the documentary: there’s a second category where contestants can add whatever they like to their oats. Seven-time-finalist Nick Barnard is a two-time winner in this category, but that doesn’t get a mention either.

Velik told the ABC she made her Aussie-flavoured porridge jaffle with bananas, wattleseed, Davidson plum powder and Bundaberg rum.

She was also runner-up in the main competition. “You think it’s all going to taste the same,” she said, “but you’d be surprised how many differences you can get with just those three ingredients.”

That conversation primed me for Costi’s documentary, so it was disappointing these things were left out.

Porridge earns its stripes

It’d be easy to trivialise this event and its organisers as little more than an old-fashioned eccentric curiosity. But reading between the lines, you come to understand that this is community engagement at its best.

A small group of volunteers in a tiny hall, in a quiet village, with not much more than their passion, dedication and love of an ancient dish have created an international event that celebrates three humble ingredients.

It is an event that has put porridge on the world stage. And much of this is captured in The Golden Spurtle. But like Oliver Twist and his oatmeal gruel, I just wanted some more.

The Golden Spurtle is in cinemas from today.

Chris Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Golden Spurtle dives into the world of competitive porridge making with heart and humour – https://theconversation.com/the-golden-spurtle-dives-into-the-world-of-competitive-porridge-making-with-heart-and-humour-269808

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Dooley, Senior Research Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Belém last month, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva urged world leaders to agree to roadmaps away from fossil fuels and deforestation and pledge the resources to meet these goals.

After failing to secure consensus, COP president Andre Corrêa do Lago announced these roadmaps as a voluntary initiative. Brazil will report back on progress at next year’s UN climate summit, COP31, when it hands the presidency to Turkey and Australia chairs the negotiations.

Why now?

These goals originate in the outcomes of the first global stocktake of the world’s progress towards the Paris Agreement goals, undertaken in 2023.

At the COP28 talks in Dubai in that year, there was an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels and to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030.

Yet achieving these goals relies on a “just transition”, where no country is left behind in the transition to a low-carbon future, including a “core package” of public finance to address climate adaptation, and loss and damage. The Belém outcome fell short.

Forests need urgent protection

Forest loss and degradation is continuing, at an average rate of 25 million hectares a year over the last decade, according to the Global Forest Watch. This is 63% higher than the rate needed to meet existing targets to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Yet the climate pledges submitted for the Belém COP remain far off track from this goal.

In the 2025 Land Gap Report, my colleagues and I calculated the scale of this “forest gap” – the gap between 2030 targets and the plans countries are putting forward in their climate pledges.

We show the pledges submitted up until this year’s climate summit would cut deforestation by less than 50% by 2030, meaning forests spanning almost 4 million hectares would still be cut down. The pledges would lead to forest degradation – where the ecological integrity of a forest area is diminished – of almost 16 million hectares. This is only a 10% reduction on current rates.

Together, this equates to an anticipated “forest gap” of around 20 million hectares expected to be lost or degraded each year by 2030. That’s about twice the size of South Korea.

While this underscores the inadequacy of commitments, the analysis is based on pledges submitted up to the start of November 2025, at which point only 40% of countries had submitted an updated plan. Major pledges submitted during COP31, such as from the European Union and China, don’t change this analysis.

Forest wins in Belém

A new fund for forest conservation called the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was launched in Brazil, attracting $US6.7 billion in pledges ($A9.9 billion).

The forest fund focuses on tropical deforestation, the leading cause of emissions from forest loss. But it has a key weakness: the limited monitoring of forest degradation, which could allow countries to receive payments while still logging primary forests.

The fund will establish a science committee and plans to revise monitoring indicators over the next three years, creating an opportunity to strengthen its ability to protect tropical forests.

The COP30 leaders’ summit also saw the launch of a historic pledge of $US1.8 billion ($A2.7 billion) to support conservation and recognition of 160 million hectares of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ territories in tropical forest countries.

But global action on forests needs to extend beyond the tropics. Across both deforestation and forest degradation, countries in the global north are responsible for over half of global tree cover loss over the past decade.

Beyond tropical forests

A global accountability framework on forests is needed to increase ambition on climate action, including in countries and regions with extensive forests outside of the tropics, such as Australia, Canada and Europe.

In these regions, industrial logging is a major driver of tree-cover loss but receives far less political attention than tropical deforestation. Wide gaps in reporting – between deforestation and degradation – mean logging-related degradation often goes unreported.

In a recent report, only 59 countries said they monitor forest degradation. Of these, almost three-quarters are tropical forest countries.

The IUCN World Conservation Congress which convened in Abu Dhabi this year prior to the climate talks, passed a motion on delivering equitable accountability and means of implementation for international forest protection goals. This arose from a recognised need to promote greater equity between forest protection standards across countries.

All of this points to an urgent need to tackle accountability in global forest governance. The forest roadmap to be developed for COP31 in Turkey could help drive stronger alignment and transparency across UN processes – from the UN Forum on Forests’ 2017–2030 plan to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s 2030 target to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

Australia could lead on forests

Australia could help shape global forest ambition in the year ahead. It is currently the only country whose emissions pledge promises to halt and reverse deforestation and degradation by 2030 – a clear signal that developed countries must lead.

As President of Negotiations at COP31, Australia can also work to bring Brazil’s fossil-fuel and forest roadmaps into formal negotiations. But this depends on two things: credible leadership from developed countries and long-overdue climate finance. As a deforestation hotspot with ongoing native forest logging, Australia has considerable work to do to meet this responsibility.

Kate Dooley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and a number of philanthropic organisations. She is affiliated with Climate Integrity and the Minderoo Foundation.

– ref. Millions of hectares are still being cut down every year. How can we protect global forests? – https://theconversation.com/millions-of-hectares-are-still-being-cut-down-every-year-how-can-we-protect-global-forests-271305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Scott, Professor of Health Economics and Director, Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University

Every other week there seems to be more bad news for private hospitals. The sale of Healthscope, hospital and maternity ward closures, and fights with private health insurers about funding, suggest they are in financial trouble.

Profitability is declining, especially since the COVID pandemic.

But are private hospitals’ financial struggles putting more pressure on public hospitals? And should governments direct more taxpayer funding to private health care?

How do private hospitals operate in Australia?

Australia has a mixed public and private hospital system. In 2022–23, the latest year for which figures are available, total funding for private hospitals from all sources was $21.5 billion, nearly a quarter of the $85.6 billion spent on public hospitals.

Private hospitals comprise around half (633 in September) of all hospitals in Australia. Three quarters of those admitted to private hospitals stayed less than 24 hours.

Around 70% of all elective surgeries (such as hip and knee replacements and cataract operations) are conducted in private hospitals, and they take 40% of all hospital admissions.

Private non-GP specialists decide who goes to a private hospital, usually after you have seen them in their private rooms.

When it comes to public hospitals, everyone seems to be waiting – waiting for emergency care, waiting for elective surgery, waiting to get onto a ward. Private hospitals are also struggling. In this five-part series, experts explain what’s going wrong, how patients are impacted, and the potential solutions.

What does ‘going private’ mean for patients?

Using the private system generally involves paying additional out-of-pocket costs – and these fees are often not known in advance.

For planned care, going private can shorten waiting times, and treatment is usually provided directly by a fully qualified specialist.

In contrast, public hospitals typically operate as training hospitals, where care is delivered by teams that include registrars: qualified doctors who are training to become specialists under specialist supervision.

It’s often assumed that paying more translates to a higher quality of care, but Australia has no objective data on the performance of non-GP specialists. GPs may offer guidance based on experience, but they also lack objective information about specialist fees and quality.

As a result, both the likely costs and the quality of care are often uncertain at the time patients are deciding between public and private treatment.

While Australians appreciate having a private system alongside public care, it does create uncomfortable questions about fairness. Private health insurance allows people to jump the queue, while many on lower incomes, who often have greater health needs, find it difficult to access specialist care.

Are private hospital pressures affecting the public system?

Public hospitals are also struggling. The median wait time for elective surgery in public hospitals has been on a steady upward trend since 2016, apart from spikes during COVID.

Ambulances are spending far more hours ramped outside public hospitals than five years ago across every state and territory.

Public hospitals frequently run deficits, spending more than they receive in funding.

But these pressures aren’t necessarily because patients have shifted away from private hospitals into public hospitals. This does not seem to be the cause of increased pressure on public hospitals.

Since 2019, the number of patients in private hospitals has actually grown faster (4.2% per year) than in public hospitals (2.8% per year).

Even as the volume of activity is increasing in private hospitals, profits are still falling.

The current situation seems to be caused by rising costs in private hospitals, not by people switching to public hospitals.

Should funding increase for private health care?

Private hospitals, private health insurers and Coalition governments have long argued that taxpayers’ money invested into private health care takes the pressure off the public sector.

While the government ruled out a bailout for Healthscope earlier this year, private health insurance rebates from the government already prop up private hospitals. These rebates are already projected to reach A$7.6 billion in 2025. And some insurers have called for even more taxpayer funding to increase these rebates.

The simple logic is appealing and understandable to voters: going private will avoid a public hospital admission for you as an individual and keep the waiting list down.

But this ignores another simple logic. Investing more in private hospitals rather than public hospitals will increase public hospital waiting lists because there is a fixed number of doctors at any one time.

Our previous research suggests that more money invested in private health care rather than public hospitals will mean non-GP specialists spend more time in private hospitals and less time in public hospitals.

With total working hours of all non-GP specialists falling over time, more private care means less public care.

And despite what many assume, having more people insured privately doesn’t take much pressure off the public system either.

Rather than increasing taxpayer subsidies to private health care, increasing funding for the public hospital system, including for doctors to spend more time in the public system, is a more direct and effective way to reduce public hospital waiting times.

Read more:
Does private health insurance cut public hospital waiting lists? We found it barely makes a dent

So how can private hospitals reduce their costs?

Many private hospitals are small day-hospitals and may not be operating at full capacity. This is inefficient.

Mergers of private hospitals might help reduce costs through economies of scale and scope. The takeover of Healthscope hospitals by other hospital groups may go some way towards reducing costs, if the fixed costs of administration and billing can be spread across more hospitals.

However, the ownership of private hospitals by private equity firms, such as Healthscope hospitals, can increase financial risks for the sector as they use specific financing mechanisms, such as selling property and leasing it back, to extract short-term profits.

The prices of medical equipment and devices are centrally negotiated and may be too high, according to private health insurers, because the federal government doesn’t negotiate hard enough with medical devices sector.

More effective regulation of the contracts struck between private hospitals and private health insurers is another policy option to provide more clear incentives to reduce costs, while also ensuring more certainty on future funding for private hospitals.

After years of taxpayer-funded expansion, private hospitals may have hit their limit. To survive and be profitable once again, something has got to give that does not rely on government handouts.

Read more from the Hospitals in Crisis series here.

Anthony Scott receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Terence C. Cheng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Private hospitals are in trouble. Here’s what this means for public hospitals – and taxpayer dollars – https://theconversation.com/private-hospitals-are-in-trouble-heres-what-this-means-for-public-hospitals-and-taxpayer-dollars-270287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sadaf Sagheer, Marketing Academic, RMIT University

Parents the world over have begun the task of negotiating Christmas lists written by their children. But buying the right presents for kids can feel like a minefield, with an ever-growing list of choices and factors to consider. Among all of this, the issue of gendered marketing looms large.

Gendered marketing refers to the division of marketplace products into restrictive gender categories. It happens when marketers employ the “four Ps of marketing” (products, price, place, promotion) but with an emphasis on gendered differences.

While gendered marketing reaches all of us, it is especially pronounced in children’s markets – and can help entrench gender inequalities from a young age.

Views on such marketing are changing rapidly with people increasingly seeking gender-inclusive products. And with good reason, as gendered marketing has been shown to have an influence on children’s interests and potentially limit their aspirations.

The pink and blue toy box

Toys are crucial in childrens’ development and learning. They help children express their emotions and imagine worlds beyond their own.

But gendered narratives baked into toys can instil certain beliefs and behaviours from an early age. From teddy bears to bicycles, colour-coding is used to suggest certain toys are “for boys” while others are “for girls”.

Take dolls as an example. Barbie, with her shiny hair and thin, statuesque body has long been criticised for setting unrealistic beauty ideals for young girls. Dolls also encourage play that emphasises grooming and caring, which, in turn, focuses girls’ attention on their appearance and ability to nurture.

This has been shown to limit occupational aspirations among young girls.
In one experimental study, 37 girls aged 4–7 played with either a Barbie or Mrs. Potato Head for five minutes, and were then asked about careers they felt they could pursue in the future. The girls – particularly those who played with Barbie – said they could pursue fewer occupations than boys, especially when considering male-dominated careers.

In contrast, action figures are marketed as distinct from dolls and as “gender-appropriate” for boys. Their disproportionate V-shaped bodies portray large and muscular physiques as a norm for men. And they are often paired with accessories such as guns and swords, subtly framing adventure and violence as masculine attributes, which young boys may try and emulate.

Even seemingly “neutral” toys such as Lego have fallen down the pink-and-blue rabbit hole. The blue-ish world of Lego City encourages adventure and heroism through roles such as police officers and firefighters. Conversely, the pink-ish world of Heartlake City is all about food, leisure and fun.

These examples reflect a broader pinkification of STEM toys, wherein fashion dolls and pink plastic lab equipment are presented as “science for girls”.

Feminist scholars and other critics have long advocated for girls and boys to freely explore their identity without gendered expectations – and toys are a part of this.

These concerns have coalesced into groups advocating for gender-neutral toys, such as Let Toys Be Toys, Pink Stinks and Play Unlimited.

De-gendering the toy market

Our recent research highlights, how marketing is a forceful agent of gender socialisation – and explores how toy companies can embrace de-gendering.

At the most basic level, this could look like designing gender-neutral toys that work for all children.

Another consideration is gender-neutral pricing: setting prices that are fair, rather than perpetuating the “pink tax”.

Marketers should also represent diverse and inclusive interests in advertisements,
by showing both boys and girls playing with all types of toys.

In 2023, Hasbro’s “proudly made for juniors” campaign portrayed a both boys and girls playing together with Nerf guns – a toy historically marketed to boys. The ad was widely praised, and set a precedent for how the toy marketplace could move beyond rigid gender constraints.

In 2021, Lego pledged to remove gender bias from its toys by no longer labelling any of its products as “for girls” or “for boys”, as well as disallowing product searches based on gender on its website.

Today, however, the manufacturer has not outlined any specific changes made to its products to remove gender biases. Moreover, the Lego Australia homepage does currently direct consumers to “Cool toys for boys”, and “Fantasy”, “Animals and nature” and “Storyteller” toys for girls.

For the parents at home

Conscious adults wary of gendered toys and marketing also have a role to play. Parents, for instance, can have open and honest conversations with their children to help them decode gendered messages in toys.

And when it comes to Christmas shopping, it might be worth skipping the “award-winning” toy lists for more local and artisanal brands, which tend to be better sources for gender-neutral toys.

It’s also important to keep an eye out for messages of faux girls’ empowerment in “femvertising”. Putting pink science kits under the Christmas tree is not going to go further in empowering young girls.

Children are curious, imaginative and free-spirited – and the toys they play with should reflect this.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The toy aisle is still full of gender bias. Here’s how to navigate it these holidays – https://theconversation.com/the-toy-aisle-is-still-full-of-gender-bias-heres-how-to-navigate-it-these-holidays-270462