Thank you for posting this article Kari. Very helpful perspective that helps all of us, no matter what our otherness, be more aware of being exclusionary. Even when unintentional, it hurts.

Lots of great thoughts here, and lots to ponder. Great thread!

Like Suz, Suntiger and Janet, I'd like to see a completely NEW way of identifying sizes and size ranges. "Straight", "Petite", "Regular" and "Plus" are all problematic on some level. The numbers method of referring to actual sizes to too long, IMO. Not punchy and practical enough. I don't know what the solution is at this point. It's very hard

I am 100% with Shevia on the problem with the word "Petite". SHORT is better - just like LONG and TALL are used already.

As for the lack of availability of larger sizes in brick and mortar stores - it works the other way round too. Extended sizes are exactly that - extended on either side of the size range. For years now, it's very hard - almost impossible - to get size US0 and US00 in stores. Same with an XXS. US2 is getting harder too. People who wear these sizes are in the same boat as far as obligated online ordering goes IF they aren't sized out. That's another issue. Fewer and fewer retailers are making very small sizes.

And last, I'm a bit dissappointed with Universal Standard. They promised to have ALL sizes in their showrooms so that people can at least try on ONE colour of an item in their actual size. It can't be that hard to achieve that - after all, that's how they will sell their merchandise. They don't have my size, and fell very short of having items for my US14/16 client to try on. I hope things improve!

Oooh, that is too bad. They definitely should have all sizes represented in the showroom. I hope they will listen to that feedback.

Yeah. Stores seem to really, really be narrowing what they make available in stores vs. online, more so than a few years ago. It’s very hard to find items in stores if you are at the extreme small and large size of their range. Or the small and large sizes are getting flat out eliminated.

But I’ll argue that there’s a lot more marginalization at the upper end of the size range (or above it!) when many manufacturers tell us they don’t want to make clothes for our bodies.

I seriously would like to know how this country gets dressed and how people make money, when the actual average is excluded? Or maybe that’s why so many are closing their doors?

30+ years ago when i worked for Marshall's we called it Missy (for sizes 2-18), Women's for sizes (18W-26W) and Juniors (for sizes 1-13)...talk about loaded terminology

Joyce B wrote:
People can be very unkind (and I am not referring to our forum) to those who struggle with their weight.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Joyce, because, for the most part, I agree with your comment and suspect you were simply reaching for a compassionate phrase, but I thought this was a good example of how we can slip into normative/marginalizing language without even realizing it.

The fact that I wear a size 16 or 18 doesn't mean that I "struggle" with my weight. It means that I live in a different size body than someone who wears a size 6 or 8. That's it.

High five, Jenn. Me too.

There’s no struggle. I just live in this body and I’ve decided to treat it lovingly rather than trying to make it something it isn’t.

Didn't read the whole article - but it does seem like extending the numbering system to be a true system would be the best way for retailers. When I buy jeans for example, I'm always looking for the waist size, the rise and the inseam length. I don't want a general "range" I want the actual measurement. I wonder why it has to be so different for other clothing items. I find the S, M, L, XL, etc. sizing to be way too general.

Hi all, it’s been years!
(Hi Angie!)
I sometimes read and something called my attention from the ongoing conversation. When using these descriptors, it is useful to also consider racial background. For Latinas (I am Latina), the word “curvy” is very sexualizing. We would call ourselves “curvy”, but resent to be labeled that way. The word is exploitative.

ETA: An article from Cosmopolitan:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/l.....djectives/

I have been socialized to idolize a certain look and I have worked hard to undo that socializing but I know it is still there.
I call myself curvy because, like Janet, that is my body shape and it has nothing to do with my size. I think that can be confusing.

Zapotee, welcome back and thanks for mentioning that. Yes. There’s definitely a problematic racist history to some words/labels for bodies and sizes. Thanks so much for adding that lens.

I didn't get a chance to read all comments, but I wish we could model men's sizes more. the othering of larger bodies is much less of an issue there (although still happens). They use simple measurements to indicate many sizes....that seems pretty neutral.

I wish we could, too, so long as we include more sizes. (The problem is that many who size this way, for example by waist measurement, still only make clothes for straight sizes only, which I don’t know until I get to the place where I can filter by size and see that there’s nothing for me there.)
“Plus size” or “extended size” is a signal to me that I might bother looking at this brand vs. having to hunt to see if they make anything close to my size.

Men’s sizes go by Regular and Tall. The latter is tall but for larger sizes. If they are tall but not larger, they cannot find something that fits them so they have their own problems.

I am reading this with interest and learning a lot. I have always appreciated Angie’s practical positive descriptors for fit. There is a lot to learn and unlearn.

Men are absolutely not immune to these issues -- if you are outside of a certain more typical size and shape, you will have trouble, full stop. Joyce, I know from trying to shop for a very tall but narrow man that it is VERY hard to find things that fit off the rack for men with tall but not large builds. Most shirts in an XL are still not quite long enough for mu husband, but they are too wide. Proper Cloth has been a lifesaver for dress shirts!

And just for fun, here’s a new comment from Instagram. Isn’t existing in a fat female body fun? My struggle isn’t with my weight, but with others who don’t want folks shaped like me to exist and definitely don’t want to make clothes for us.

Thank you, Dr. Fart Yeti.

Kari, thanks for sharing your and others' perspectives on this issue. It's a good learning opportunity for me, and I appreciate it!

As to Dr. Gaseous - well that is just ridiculous - a woman's (anyone's) health situation is between her and her doctor - no one else. It is ridiculous to me whenever someone wants to isolate any one variable of health and make pronouncements about it - it's not just unkind, it's almost certainly a bad diagnosis! I wonder what Mayo Clinic says about taking health advice from trolls on Instagram *ponders deeply*

I think it's a solid strategy to not take life advice from someone who calls themselves fart yeti.

Yep!

Fart dude is as useless as his screen name.

@Janet, thank you for mentioning Proper Cloth. I will check there for shirts that fit my husband an son. Like your husband, they are tall but narrow and it is difficult for them to find well-fitting clothes.

Another problematic descriptor (in my opinion) which crops up A LOT goes along the lines of:

Created for "real" women ... (Emphasis mine).

It rubs me the wrong way on so many levels---I find it patronizing, insulting, and frankly, stupid.

Agreed, Laurel. A small woman is no less real than a larger one.

Wish there were a function such that I could put a thumbs up on posts!

I have to remind myself that it’s *only* a brand name, but I feel so left out by Universal Standard. Whose universe? I am short, especially in arms and legs so I strongly doubt any of their offerings will fit me so will only try them as a last resort.

And yes, I don’t really care for my size range as being called Petite. I am neither delicate nor fragile; medium by American standards and probably large boned by Asian standards. I am fine with short because that is a more accurate description.

Gotta say, it feels so weird to say *straight* sizes when I have so many friends who are queer/lesbian/non-binary identified. It makes me feel as though those sizes are only for straight people. Size spectrum terminology needs to be improved!

DonnaF, even knowing that you dislike the petite term, have you tried any of US’s petite offerings?

I hope in the future they will carry more petites/short sizes as well as look towards taller customers. They recently launched a “Mom” line as well, so it looks like gradual expansions are on their radar.

I wonder what would be a better term to signal “non plus size” clothes without othering. I really dislike “regular” or “normal” size.

A “mom” line? What is that? Maternity?

Maternity, postpartum with their fit liberty guarantee. You can see details here.

https://www.universalstandard......iberty-mom