The recent re-election of Donald Trump and the stateside war on DEI appear to have stiffened the spines of conservatives not just in America, but on this side of the pond too. Anyone vaguely engaged with social media will likely attest that the Overton window has shifted rightwards as conservatives are emboldened by this ‘Trump effect’.
Yet at the same time, we are constantly reminded how deeply woke ideology has infiltrated our major institutions. Just this week in Britain, the Science Museum—a place where, if anywhere, biological fact should count for something—has come under well-deserved fire from conservative publications. The museum’s ‘Seeing Things Queerly’ self-guided tour made headlines last week with multiple media outlets revealing how it depicts LEGO (yes, the Danish-produced building blocks) as “anti-LGBT.”
The tour was first mentioned on the Museum’s blog back in 2022, but was only picked up by an article in The Telegraph last week. It was organised by the Gender and Sexuality Network, charged with “creating more visibility and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community in the Science Museum Group’s museums and collection.”
This is what the blog says about LEGO:
Like other connectors and fasteners, Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way. The top of the brick with sticking out pins is male, the bottom of the brick with holes to receive the pins is female, and the process of the two sides being put together is called mating.
This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics unrelated to gender, sex and reproduction. It illustrates how heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual) shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.
Where is the evidence that LEGO bricks are “often described in a gendered way”? I have never once heard anyone—child or adult—refer to them as “male” and “female,” or the process of connecting them as “mating.” How exactly would LEGO function without such connecting parts? In what sense can LEGO be classified as “heteronormative” when the pieces are identical? Surely, if anything, that makes LEGO gay-friendly since (like homosexuality) each individual possesses the same equipment? Furthermore, why would you feel the need to sexualise children’s toys, unless you were trying to promote a certain form of sexuality to them?
The more sinister side to the ‘Seeing Things Queerly’ tour is encapsulated in the claim that LEGO “illustrates … heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual).” This is not only profoundly anti-scientific, but outright mendacious. Gender binary is the norm, and everything that falls outside is by definition unusual. That ‘normative’ has culturally come to be considered a negative thing, even at an institution like the Science Museum, speaks volumes. Throughout the entirety of human history, it has not been necessary to “normalise heterosexuality”; thankfully our ancestors had bigger things to worry about than confusing the contents of their pants. Even the word ‘heterosexual’ was not in common use until the 1960s, and we seemed to manage alright up to that point.
The Science Museum does have form in this department. Just two years ago, it felt compelled to dismantle a ‘trans-inclusive’ display, after criticism that it was pushing propaganda rather than science. The ‘Boy or Girl’ gallery, featuring chest binders and a fake penis, was adorned with quotes such as “‘wrong body’”, and ‘“hero’s journey,” and suggested that gender was ‘“difficult to define.” As is customary, the museum has downplayed the importance of the tour—notably, only once objections were raised.
LEGO meanwhile is yet to respond officially, but it seems safe to guess which side of the argument they will endorse. Back in 2021, the company pledged to eliminate ‘gender bias’ from its toys, stating “We still experience age-old stereotypes that label activities as only being suitable for one specific gender.” In the same year, the brand launched the first rainbow-themed LGBTQ+ LEGO set, called ‘Everyone is awesome.’
Like the Science Museum, LEGO can preach all it wants, but the facts are unequivocal. Even according to the brand’s own research, 90% of its $4 billion market is composed of boys; the reasons for which are blindingly obvious: men are interested in things, women are interested in people. The company would naturally like to get a few more girls on board, however, I can’t help thinking ‘LEGO Gender Dysphoria’ sets might not be the way to go about it.
Not a Lego To Stand On
Photo: ©2024 The LEGO Group. Photos used with permission.
The recent re-election of Donald Trump and the stateside war on DEI appear to have stiffened the spines of conservatives not just in America, but on this side of the pond too. Anyone vaguely engaged with social media will likely attest that the Overton window has shifted rightwards as conservatives are emboldened by this ‘Trump effect’.
Yet at the same time, we are constantly reminded how deeply woke ideology has infiltrated our major institutions. Just this week in Britain, the Science Museum—a place where, if anywhere, biological fact should count for something—has come under well-deserved fire from conservative publications. The museum’s ‘Seeing Things Queerly’ self-guided tour made headlines last week with multiple media outlets revealing how it depicts LEGO (yes, the Danish-produced building blocks) as “anti-LGBT.”
The tour was first mentioned on the Museum’s blog back in 2022, but was only picked up by an article in The Telegraph last week. It was organised by the Gender and Sexuality Network, charged with “creating more visibility and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community in the Science Museum Group’s museums and collection.”
This is what the blog says about LEGO:
Where is the evidence that LEGO bricks are “often described in a gendered way”? I have never once heard anyone—child or adult—refer to them as “male” and “female,” or the process of connecting them as “mating.” How exactly would LEGO function without such connecting parts? In what sense can LEGO be classified as “heteronormative” when the pieces are identical? Surely, if anything, that makes LEGO gay-friendly since (like homosexuality) each individual possesses the same equipment? Furthermore, why would you feel the need to sexualise children’s toys, unless you were trying to promote a certain form of sexuality to them?
The more sinister side to the ‘Seeing Things Queerly’ tour is encapsulated in the claim that LEGO “illustrates … heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual).” This is not only profoundly anti-scientific, but outright mendacious. Gender binary is the norm, and everything that falls outside is by definition unusual. That ‘normative’ has culturally come to be considered a negative thing, even at an institution like the Science Museum, speaks volumes. Throughout the entirety of human history, it has not been necessary to “normalise heterosexuality”; thankfully our ancestors had bigger things to worry about than confusing the contents of their pants. Even the word ‘heterosexual’ was not in common use until the 1960s, and we seemed to manage alright up to that point.
The Science Museum does have form in this department. Just two years ago, it felt compelled to dismantle a ‘trans-inclusive’ display, after criticism that it was pushing propaganda rather than science. The ‘Boy or Girl’ gallery, featuring chest binders and a fake penis, was adorned with quotes such as “‘wrong body’”, and ‘“hero’s journey,” and suggested that gender was ‘“difficult to define.” As is customary, the museum has downplayed the importance of the tour—notably, only once objections were raised.
LEGO meanwhile is yet to respond officially, but it seems safe to guess which side of the argument they will endorse. Back in 2021, the company pledged to eliminate ‘gender bias’ from its toys, stating “We still experience age-old stereotypes that label activities as only being suitable for one specific gender.” In the same year, the brand launched the first rainbow-themed LGBTQ+ LEGO set, called ‘Everyone is awesome.’
Like the Science Museum, LEGO can preach all it wants, but the facts are unequivocal. Even according to the brand’s own research, 90% of its $4 billion market is composed of boys; the reasons for which are blindingly obvious: men are interested in things, women are interested in people. The company would naturally like to get a few more girls on board, however, I can’t help thinking ‘LEGO Gender Dysphoria’ sets might not be the way to go about it.
READ NEXT
Over Dead Bodies—Europe’s Endless History Wars
When Is a Refugee Not a Refugee?
For a Kiss? The Left’s Double Standards on Trial