Barbie 2 Should Be About the Gender Binary. It Practically Writes Itself.

Gerwig knocked it out of the park, but may I humbly suggest another inning?

Mother Jones; SSPL/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

As a trans guy I feel an affinity to Ken. No body hair? No male genitalia? Parted hair? Fashionable outfits? And the undying belief that women are wonderful? Sign me up!

So, I donned my best Beach look (this wasn’t hard: I already own a matching, patterned swim-trunk, button down combo) and showed up ready for two hours of Ryan Gosling as an unproblematic sidekick and a rare male icon.

Before I go any further, I must make something very clear. Unlike some other men, I do not need a movie about dolls to affirm my masculinity.

So, when Greta Gerwig had other ideas about Ken, I (mostly) rolled with the punches. Part way through the movie, I turned to my partner—donned in their best Nonbinary Barbie fit—my jaw wide and half gasped, “Ken is the villain?”

They looked at me confused, “You didn’t know?”

It turns out I had been living in a little bit of a delusional Mojo Dojo Casa House. Gerwig undoubtedly knocked Ken’s arcresentful-lover-boy-sidekick to sneering incel to sad-boy-obsessed-with-horses—out of the park.

Having given up on Ken, I wondered if Barbie might surprise me in another way, a la: “This Barbie got top surgery and now goes by Aiden.” Because I promise plenty of trans people played with barbies and I can’t be the only one who cut their Barbie’s hair and renamed them Ben. Right?

I really do not want to be another man complaining about not being represented in the Barbie movie. But, from a purely marketing perspective, I must say there is missed trans potential that Gerwig and Mattel can still capitalize on. Because we know that it is all about the money.

Don’t get me wrong, there was a standout LGBTQ cast—Hari Nef, Kate McKinnon, Alexandra Shipp, Scott Evans, and Ncuti Gatwa—and plenty of queer Easter Eggs, including cock-ring-wearing Earring Magic Ken’s appearance. (The movie cut the cock ring, but the nod was still there.) While I wish they had been brave enough to make the representation explicit, it didn’t stop critics from claiming the movie was “full of transsexual, and transgender, and homosexuality.”  Whatever that means.

Mother Jones; Heilke Heller/ullstein bild/Getty

It may have been too much to fit into one movie, but if plastic dolls and Gerwig can break down the patriarchy, the gender binary is a natural next step. With blowout box office sales, I would be surprised if there were not conversations about a Barbie 2. And the setup is all there. May I direct you to arguably the best line of the movie, delivered by Robbie while gliding down Venice Beach in neon roller skates: “I don’t have a vagina, and he doesn’t have a penis. We don’t have genitals.” The trans internet exploded with quips like “Tell me you’re trans without telling me you’re trans.” Some even got emotional when they saw themselves reflected in the Allan character who fell outside of the Ken/Barbie binary.

It speaks to Barbie’s opportunity to complicate the connection between gender and sex. As Robbie explains, “She’s a plastic doll. She doesn’t have organs. If she doesn’t have organs, she doesn’t have reproductive organs.” Our lead Barbie goes on to ask and answer, “If she doesn’t have reproductive organs, would she even feel sexual desire? No, I don’t think she could.” While some are lauding Robbie for saying this means Barbie is asexual, it is important to note sexuality has nothing to do with anatomy and reproductive organs are not needed for sexual desire. Barbie may be asexual, but its not because of what’s in her pants.

The logic that Barbie’s gender may be determined by any biological sex is also silly. When Robbie’s Barbie turns into human Barbara, it’s suggested she gets her very own vulva, but that is new and chosen—not predetermined. 

Even Ken points out the fallacy that gender is really set or standard. “To be honest, when I found out the patriarchy wasn’t just about horses,” he cries, “I lost interest.” He couldn’t care less about beer, guitars, fur coats, or manliness. He is just an immature horse girl figuring his shit out. 

We already know that Mattel is not opposed to playing with gender, having launched a “Gender Neutral Doll” in 2019, or to uplifting trans people, having made a Laverne Cox barbie doll in 2022. As long as it’s profitable, of course. So it’s time to step up. Let Hari Nef have as many lines as she wants. Let Elliot Page wander into Barbie land and see what happens. JVN can queer eye some Kens and introduce them to the term nonbinary.

Ben Shapiro’s head may explode, and he will look silly filming a three-hour video on a movie about dolls. And that is always a plus.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate