I'm trying to get you to focus on how you communicated, not what you said specifically. But if you want to play this game instead:

First shows that girls show a statistical preference to dolls over trucks before sexual and gender identities are formed

Second shows women communicate differently than men, study using colour, not based on colour

Third doesn't do much "However, it is still unclear from the literaturewhether children‟s personal preferences beginning in infancy shape the development of gender stereotypes, orwhether children‟s growing knowledge about gender leads to gender-stereotyped preferences"; i see what you were trying to draw from the overall article though, as it spoke about cultural influence of colour preference, varying partly by gender, gender roles and stereotypes

Fourth, I don't know why this is here, it's a study on congratulation cards "the messages contained in societal artifacts... reflect societal perceptions" - not relevant, and it's a study on cards from over 20 years ago. I really don't know why you posted this.

Fifth, it shows where your view for gender neutrality stems from, and I agree with it on the individual level. However, it's an essay, not a study. "As a corporeal field of cultural play, gender is a basically innovative affair" This would support your point if it were a conclusive study.

Sixth is outdated. Insanely outdated. But other than that, "In general, feminine toys were stereotyped more than masculine toys although parents were more gender neutral in their ratings of toys than non parents" This would indicate girls are more likely to play with masculine toys than boys are to play with feminine. Toys were not differentiated by colour.

Seventh, "The advertisers no doubt operate on the pragmatic assumption that girls will readily accept a masculine mode of address whilst boys will systematically reject anything regarded as feminine on the same principle of conventional wisdom as that which suggests that "boys will not watch girls on television, but ... girls will watch programs for boys" (Seiter, 1995, p. 166)." You cited an article that contradicts your argument.

At this point, none of your sources actually support your argument. I'm going to bed. Congratulations you trolled me.