being forced to act a certain way may achieve a certain type of behaviour but no way in hell will it be or look natural.
Firstly no one is talking about forcing. The issue is about constant, reinforced, roles that a developing child is led on almost from day one which slowly, subtly but massively sculpt their behaviors later in life. And that very much would look "natural". Words like "forcing" cloud the issue as for the most part not only is the intention of those influences not to "force" anything but in fact most of them parents and people around those children are likely not even aware they are doing.
" Calvin won't be distracted by anything other than those dinosaur cartoons. He seems to really like them " " Calvin really struggles to fall asleep. I tried reading him lots of books, but he only seemed to enjoy the one with the Princes battling dragons..."
This is still begging the question however as you have not established on any level that this is in fact what is happening. It is just assumed in your approach. One would need more than anecdote to support it too. Where are the studies that show that all things being equal boys do gravitate towards male roled books and girls do gravitate towards girl role books.
Further those studies would actually have to account for what we are discussing, otherwise they would be making the same error I highlighted you making in my first post. If from day one we are influencing one sex towards one role then this likely influences them towards books that fit that role too. So your "natural" gravitation towards one type of book might be wholly imagined in that it is also caused by the very thing I suggested in my first post too. This is why anecdote in these matters are so poor.
On top of all that one must normalize such a study for the interest the reader has in the material too. Whether I realize it or not for example if I read two books one about my little pony and fairies, and one about sword wielding knights I am likely to be more involved and interested in the latter and this too will transmit itself to the listener. So what you mistake as a natural gravitation towards one type of book might also be influenced heavily by the readers interest in that material. If we are going to throw out anecdotes then my own is that my 20 month old daughter is at this time equally interested in my reading her books about trains, cars and police as she is about Heidi, Ponies and Fairies. She has quite a thing for tractors too.
So once again you seem to be falling prey to a willingness to simply observe behavior and use that behavior as conclusive evidence that the behavior is natural which is as I said before both begging the question and circular reasoning. This would be analogous to watching a series of moths immolate themselves on a flame and say because we observe the behavior then this behavior is natural and it is just what moths do. The reasons for such behavior in moths however is deeper than that and is related to how they use the moon for navigation.
To support any contention that gender roles are natural from that early an age you simply have to find more substantiation for the claim than the existence of the behavior itself and I am simply not seeing that being presented here. A fact that is much more than, as you painted it, "penalizing a perspective because it's based on observations". That's an unfortunate and rather disingenuous way of putting what I have been espousing. The issue is actually with observing an event and basing conclusions on it on nothing but the fact you have observed the event.