That’s a real bad name for a pregnancy line. Not every pregnant human is a “mom”. I also never liked “petite”. It sounds infantile.

The issue would be best solved with standardization in numerical ranges. There is no emotion in numbers.

Another "size" that should be banned:

ONE SIZE FITS ALL

Ridiculous. Should be "ONE SIZE WHICH FITS SOME PEOPLE, POORLY"

And, just as bad:

ONE SIZE FITS MOST. ("If it doesn't fit YOU, well, that's on YOU!" implied)

(One other questionable thing with US’s mom line, which I didn’t realize until looking over it the other night: there aren’t exactly nursing-friendly tops or dresses. That’s a bit surprising and seems like an obvious miss.)

Laurel, YES.
“We’re only going to bother making one size. Too bad if you’re too big or small!”

Straight size sounds off to me too. To me it implies "by default", how it should be. Average or "normal" to me reads as the better words, they are purely mathematical terms. (With that said, the average is actually size 14 and up, so something is wrong here either way). I am saying this as someone who falls out of the average/straight/whatnot sizing most of the time my self (I wear mostly Talls). Interesting and informative to read all of your thoughts on this!

Again, I’d prefer numbers over labels if the sizing is more inclusive than almost all are. But what does it say about fat or large bodies (I describe myself as both) that we aren’t considered “normal” or “regular”? To me it feels reeeeally crummy.

Agree with using just plain numbers only -with no emotional load- for all sizes- AND without grouping them in any categories (small, tall, curvy, plus, petite or so...).

Then, I can relate to the manufacturer troubles to make a cut to fit all existing bodies in those sizes- be any much of them.
Bodies are so different, we all know- and even so there'll be surely somebody left out. It is a bit irreal to expect mass production clothes to fit every body even if we consider only those in the same size range.

OTOH smaller sizes can really feel privileged to an extent as it is so much easier to adjust clothing by taking them in or shorten. When you don't have enough fabric, then you cannot make your own adjustments...
Just My 2 very subjective cents of beeing mad on all the too short hems from the last 20 years.

And why don't B&M stores carry samples of the larger sizes, too- indeed??? Probably no fun, but what if B&M stores would carry only samples for trying on everything they offer in each size (from 000- to 100) and then every size should be ordered online- so that we could share all the same experience during shopping- good or bad...(I really commiserate).

lynn67...like the idea of stores carry sample of all sizes and the ordering online. i wonder if anyone is already doing that?

Such a great discussion as always! I love the idea of a store that just has try-on samples of everything. Treat everyone the same. Although a lot of shopping is about impulse so that would be gone (which might not be a bad thing).

I am a short person and have many friends and loved ones who are heavy and I know how hard it is. And those who are short AND heavy have an even harder time. I am often at the top of the petite range in a size 10. I agree with Lyn67 though, that it is impossible for off the rack clothing to fit everyone but it does seem like they would try harder, for the $$ if nothing else.

I am thinking this through, so advance apologies if I'm clumsy ... I think lyn has a great point; the truth is there are infinite body types so it's impossible for full accommodation (certainly, there is more than plenty of room for fairer and more representative accommodation).

The problem with descriptors is that they almost always are comparative. Even if it's broken down to geometry - in my case, I might be called a "rectangle" - but compared to what? Because by comparison to an actual rectangle, I'm curvy - but compared to Marilyn Monroe, I'm definitely a rectangle.

I don't know if this issue is solved with number sizing, or redefining "average" so the starting point is more representative, or a broad recognition that "average" is actually just a random placeholder from which we all vary to greater or lesser degrees. I think more diverse representation is an excellent starting point.

This is not meant to minimize the disproportionate hardship or frustration foisted on those with body types who less match the so-called "average" - my comments are meant "in addition to", rather than "but" - don't know if that makes any sense at all! Certainly, as with so many issues, a lot is solved is we could all just follow the golden rule - treat others as we would like to be treated! This would at least strip out the moralizing and judgment imposed on many women.

@Jen, I want to clarify in case this is needed. As I said at the end of my paragraph from which you quoted one sentence, everyone’s experience is different.
In commenting I was not looking for a “compassionate” phrase or to be shown by anyone as an example of “how we can slip into normative/marginalizing language without even realizing it”, to quote what you said.
If my comment about struggle bothered you, it referred to my own personal experience as I have lived in very different sizes and I have struggled. The topic struck a chord for me although that was not what Kari was posting about. My comment did not mean that everyone struggles with their weight but I certainly did. Please do not take my comments out of context.

@Kari, I do not want to hijack your topic, just to clarify where I am coming from.

lynn67 And kkards, that’s what Universal Standard is attempting with their showroom, though sounds like they don’t always have all sizes In stock based on Angie’s experience. The company has been introducing new items WAY more frequently in 2019 so I wonder if the showrooms have trouble keeping up with that turnover.

Also, back in the day, Nordstrom Anniversary Sale presale was like that. (Now, less than 1/3 of their already tiny plus size NAS collection was available in the flagship, and even less in smaller stores, based on when I filtered by plus sizes.)

Many great thoughts here, and many new to me too. Thanks for sharing, ladies.

Jeneva and others, I dress a fair amount of men - they have the same issues, as Janet suggests. It's just that their fashion is simpler, which helps a little. Tall and narrow is challenging. And so is short and round with a sizable midsection or barrel chest. Numbers do not help as well as you think they so unfortunately.

Kari, I wish I could latch onto using "Straight" sizes instead of "Regular"! Like Donna F, it's too descriptive of sexual orientation, especially since my clientele is very diverse. It's soooo hard

Kari, yes, to the largest sizes being more marginalized than the smallest. It's very un-fab.

Zapotee, nice to see you chime in! Thanks for explaining the word "Curvy" from a Latina perspective. Very interesting! Unless you have another suggestion, I need to keep using Curvy to describe fit because it's a literal thing that makes sense - like tall and short. A fit that works well over that curvy part of the body - like the bust, belly or hips (and in any size). Yes, those are sexual triggers - like crotch point. But it's practical. Soooo hard

Helena, you are dead right about the comparative problem. If the descriptors became numbers - people would find a way to compare the numbers soon enough, and a myriad of emotions would once again occur.

One thing I’d like to caution: I’d be more inclined to trust and listen to what the people most impacted, I.e. fat or plus size people, are asking about how they would like their bodies to be described vs. how we may feel is best. I certainly don’t speak for all (and I know Angie and possibly others saw the article I linked to on the prior page.)
The author of this article, YourFatFriend, is a self-described fat queer white cis lady (and she doesn’t speak for all of that demographic either.)

As fat and LGBTQ folks (AND people of color) are MUCH in the minority on YouLookFab, please let’s be careful not to make assumptions or disregard when we DO hear from them. (Not talking about me as I’m being very vocal in this conversation, as I started the thread.) That’s partly why, in my previous post about this topic, I encouraged those interested to seek out diverse voices, visuals, models, and brands vs. those who happen to look like ourselves. We aren’t a terribly diverse group in many respects, so I’m trying to be cautious about how we speak about folks who aren’t in this conversation.

In general, I hear “straight size” or “thin” used by plus size/fat folks and marginalizing language like “normal” and “regular” not preferred (and again, I’m on the small size of the spectrum and I don’t claim to represent all voices, but that’s just what I know from the communities I’ve been part of, which include many LGBTQ and queer/non-binary folks.)

I’m very happy to be corrected if you know of sources that have other preferred terms.

@Zapotee "curvy" doesn't bother me as a descriptive word (well depends on who and how they say it...) because that's just my body type. We just tend to be curvier than many caucasian women, which are seen as the norm in the US. But I'm just speaking for me though!

Oooh, this just came across my feed, courtesy of Unlikely Hikers
https://theglowup.theroot.com/.....1840882780

High five. I just saw that on their feed too. Unlikely Hikers is awesome!

Another thing I just thought of.
There’s so much packing advice on how to pack small & light, carry-on only, etc
I’m currently packing for a trip, where there’s strict weight limits on the luggage & I will be checking because of my photography gear.
Even my small and basic underwear & bras are bigger. Pants and sweaters especially. Also because I’m a size 10-11 shoe, they take up a lot more room and weight.

Yes. I also had that aha moment when I was trying to figure out clothing finding and rolling techniques. It did not work. Why? Oh. My clothes contain a lot more fabric and take up more space. I figured out how to adjust but it took some asking similarly sized folks for solutions that work for bigger garments. And definitely packing with strict (and ever-stricter) weight limits is frustrating.

Kari, thanks for the info. Knowledge is power, and I appreciate you sharing more of yours. More to ponder!

Anna, YES. I get the carry-on packing challenges because I help people of all sizes pack travel capsules. Men who wear size US14 shoes, for example. Not easy....

GREAT article too.

(Huge thanks to all for trying to discuss this loaded subject with sensitivity and kindness, including when challenging one another. Thank you for listening. And again, if folks find other voices or sources they want to include, I’d love to see/read them!)

Some other related content that’s a bit older.

Warning that there is some problematic, fatphobic content in the full article including “the obesity epidemic.” Parsing some relevant bits:

“Sales go up when dress sizes go down, it appears. Women feel better, and therefore buy more, when they fit into a size smaller than expected. This psychological trick may benefit companies but it wreaks havoc on a consumer's psyche. 

"Since size is something we care about deeply, our emotional response overpowers logic. We want so badly to be assured that we're thin and beautiful," Susan Head, a body-image specialist and clinical psychologist, explained to Cosmopolitan. Head also added, "The fact that there's not one standard to compare ourselves to creates anxiety because we have no control. We are in the dark and detached from our bodies."

“With dress sizes being, quite frankly, all over the place, you'd think there would be a wide range of sizes readily available to you. Unfortunately, that is not the case.”

“Plus size stores merely existing doesn't mean the options for average American women are endless. Poor fit is still a common problem. After all, plus size clothing is based on the dimensions of women between the sizes 0 to 6, according to an article by Forbes. In a way, this is similar to how women's ready-made clothing was first designed in the 1940s — fashioned after men's dimensions. Of course, this isn't the 1940s anymore so American clothing has some major catching up to do.”

Read More: https://www.thelist.com/105630.....paign=clip

........

“ In the US clothing industry, sizes 14 and above are typically considered “plus size,” though not everyone who falls into that range identifies or agrees with the term. To some, it’s an outdated and othering way to describe the majority of American women; to others, it’s a useful signpost toward clothes that will actually fit. Today, some brands are making it a moot point entirely, doing away with divisions and adopting inclusive sizing...

“ Plunkett Research estimates that 68 percent of American women wear a size 14 or above, up slightly from the frequently cited 67 percent figure it found in 2012.

How much is this average American woman spending on her wardrobe? According to the most recent figures available from market research firm NPD, US sales of women’s plus-size apparel reached $21.4 billion in 2016. The category is also growing substantially faster than the overall US apparel market, at a rate of 6 percent versus 3 percent year over year.

That’s just in terms of sales, though; when it comes to the selection she finds at major stores, numbers still haven’t improved much. The retail analytics firm Edited looked at 25 of the largest multi-brand retailers (think Shopbop, Macy’s, Net-a-Porter, etc.), which together carry more than 15,500 brands, and found that just 2.3 percent of their women’s apparel assortment is plus-size.

This figure is so abysmal in part because there is almost no selection in the luxury market...”

https://www.racked.com/2018/6/.....lus-market

Racked: The Size Conversation
https://www.racked.com/2018/6/.....nversation

Angie: I wish I had such eloquence to summon another word for curvy, I don’t. I bet others, who know what they are doing, have come up with better alternatives already. If I ever come across an article I’ll be sure to link!

I’m thinking is good to be aware of these cultural differences anyway. Also, I would say the old logic of “asking before assuming”, applies here. One can always ask if someone is comfortable with using whatever word, before hand.

Thank you for saying hi! It’s been a long while.

And one tidbit via Instagram today, from public comments.

Roxane Gay was photographed in ID magazine. She said “It’s my coat. I styled myself because the stylist seemed disinterested in styling a fat woman.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7.....7bx3l0iken

https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/art.....ne-rihanna