Assembly Member Evan Low is taking a victory lap today.

He solved one of California’s most pressing problems.

Was it the pending budget deficit?

No.

Perhaps it was fixing the homeless problem?

No.

Then how about skyrocketing fire insurance?

Nada.

Think as a California legislator would as the Golden State takes a roller coaster ride through concerns such as decaying inner cities, a bloated high speed rail budget, wildfires, rising PG&E costs, the never-ending affordable housing crisis, increasing poverty in the San Joaquin Valley, doctor shortages, droughts, floods, and never-ending education funding issues.

What would you devote your energy to getting a new law passed back in the year 2021?

The answer is obvious.

End segregation practices that separate Barbie from GI Joe.

Yes, as we enter 2024, any store that still has a physical location in California despite its Byzantine laws and regulations and still has 500 employees left that they haven’t replaced with gig workers or automation to deal with ever increasing wage requirements, must have a gender neutral toy section.

This is not a joke.

It is one of the new laws California passed when lawmakers weren’t busy spending the state into a $68 billion hole by adding such ongoing costs as $3.1 billion a year in health coverage for 700,000 illegal immigrants.

In all fairness to the usual suspects — Walmart, Target, and Costco — they had either done away with, or started to eliminate, traditional preconceived groupings of toys by gender long before Low saddled up his high horse.

You know the toys they’re talking about.

The chemistry sets in the boys’ toy section like the one my cousin Gail, who is very much not a boy, got for Christmas in 1968.

Or the Dennis the Menace doll my dad got for me when I was 6 years old in 1963 when boys did not have dolls.

As an aside, I hated the doll. Not because it was a doll, but because I got teased incessantly about my name and all it did was encourage others — including adults — to pile on.

I digress — to a degree.

Back in the 1960s, parents clearly weren’t influenced by how it was the norm for stores to group toys that were made for — or perceived to be for — a specific gender.

Low said he was inspired to introduce the bill that imposes a $250 fine for the first violation and then $500 for every subsequent violation by an 8 year-old girl.

The girl asked Low, “Why should a store tell me what a girl’s shirt or toy is?”

Keep those 13 words in mind as you read what Low shared with a reporter.

Low said the “bill will help children express themselves freely and without bias. We need to let kids be kids.”

Resist, if you will, the temptation to be flippant.

After all, what 8 year-old do you now sounds as if they are manning the ramparts in the fight for gender neutrality?

That, however, is not the zinger.

Low did only half the job.

And the only thing he addressed was fruit that was so low hanging it was about to fall off the tree anyway based on the already changing patterns of toy merchandising by big retailers.

The question must be asked: Does Low how the courage to finish the job and require the likes of Target, Walmart, Kohl’s, JC Penney, TJ Maxx, Ross, Macy’s, et al to do the same with kids’ clothing?

Low did point out the girl said “why should a store tell me what a ‘girl’s shirt’ or toy is.”

So, why is Low allowing big retailers to relegate dresses to the girls’ clothing section and Spider-Man PJs to the boys’ clothing section?

If he really want kids to be “free to express themselves freely and without bias”, then he needs to tackle corporate marketing that plays to parameters put on kids by societal norms that perceive boys as boys and girls as girls.

In all honesty, there is more pressure for kids to conform to gender roles with gender segregated clothing departments than there is in today’s toy aisles.

Underwear, for example, should be its own department to avoid confusing kids.

The same goes for sandals, dress shoes, and boots.

What kind of message is it sending to teens if high heels are in the girls shoe section and Air Jordans are in the boys shoe section?

Talk about conformity.

Is it right that stores such as Target display personal care products with those designed for females in one section and those for males in another section?

And in Low’s world is the fact Target has about five times the amount of personal grooming items marketed at women then they do for items marketed at men a gross violation of civil rights or at least subconscious re-enforcement of gender perceptions?

Boy George might be comfortable wandering into woman’s cosmetics but would a young boy be?

Admittedly, it sounds silly.

But if it is the business of Sacramento to regulate toy displays so stores don’t re-enforce gender perceptions for impressionable young minds, then they’d better restrict shopping in stores to those 18 or older unless other sections of stores are stopped from re-enforcing old school gender trappings, especially in clothing and personal care products.

One might wonder if Sacramento wants stores to be safe havens for kids, why they aren’t doing more to make crimes such as smash and grabs, flash mob style looting, and good old-fashioned shoplifting where some of the practitioners become violent when confronted to have greater consequences.

The answer is obvious.

They are real problems.

As such, they apparently are not the forte of politicians channeling social warriors.

So the next time you are in a store and you see criminals running through the exit clutching stolen items after pushing loss prevention officers to the ground, thank your lucky stars that politicians like Low at least have made sure toy aisles are safe havens for kids in terms of not being subjected to gender segregation.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com