True, there is no research linking gendered marketing of toys and books and later occupational discrimination

You wonder if some writers ever pay attention to what they are actually saying. From Why Are Toys So Gendered? by Cordelia Fine. Fine is clearly of the school that says genders are a social construct and have no biological basis. It is a hotly contended point and there is good evidence on both sides of the aisle - indicating to me that the reality is that we are posing the wrong question. It isn't a binary issue of whether or not gender is socially constructed or not but to what degree (and in what ways)?

Regardless of the independent merits of that debate, Fine has written an article to show that science doesn't support that there is a biological basis for gender preferences. But look at two succeeding paragraphs. The first poses her argument and the second is intended to support it.

But the detrimental effects of this kind of marketing, though clearly only one factor in a mix of many influences on the young, may run broader and deeper. It polarizes children into stereotypes. It's not just that vehicles, weapons, and construction sets are presented as "for boys" while toys of domesticity and beautification are "for girls." Toys for boys facilitate competition, control, agency, and dominance; those for girls promote cooperation and nurturance. These gender stereotypes, acquired in childhood, underlie a host of well-documented biases against women in traditionally masculine domains and roles, and they hinder men from sharing more in the responsibilities and rewards of domestic life.

This is then followed with the evidentiary paragraph. Which in its totality is:

True, there is no research linking gendered marketing of toys and books and later occupational discrimination or sharing of household chores. But the smart money would say the effects won't be trivial, given that children are enveloped in some of the most relentless stereotyping to be found in the 21st century.

I know it happens all the time. Someone wants to make a respectable argument using logic and science and then fall all over themselves because they are actually advancing a personal belief system rather than an empirical argument and they are not actually knowledgeable about logic, argument and/or science. But usually they kind of stumble around and fail to make their case. Rarely do they so blatantly come so close to saying - I want to make a scientific case for my belief but there is no evidence to support my belief. So trust me.