Genetic engineering of humans is a controversial practice with unknown societal effects. Gender constitutes an important evaluative background for human behavior and traits. This manifests within action-guiding normative gender stereotypes. This study investigates to which extent these stereotypes may influence the application of genetic engineering. After highlighting potential motivations to enact stereotypes biotechnologically, we propose two potential strategies. People may design future children in close accordance with contemporary gender stereotypes, e.g., to minimize their risk of being punished for non-confirmation, or may create individuals that counteract these stereotypes, e.g., to create a more gender-egalitarian future. To test these hypotheses, we analyzed a large-scale dataset (13,641 virtual children) from an interactive museum exhibit. Here, visitors could design their "perfect child." Gender-dependent differences in designed Big-5-like personality traits and intelligence, musicality, creativity, and sportiness yielded evidence for behavior predicted by both strategies and were inconclusive regarding the dominance of one strategy. Confirming contemporary stereotypes, children deliberately chosen to be male were designed with lower sensibility but higher sportiness than those deliberately chosen to be female. These effects were accompanied by a relatively higher probability of decreasing sensibility and increasing sportiness of these male children. Non-differences among traits like sociality and conscientiousness disconfirmed normative stereotypes and suggested a more egalitarian design. Effect direction, strength, and certainty depended on whether gender was picked deliberately and other factors. Although the ecological setting and methodological limitations hinder a clear interpretation, we provide initial evidence on how genetically engineered children can "essentially" embody gender normativity.