What if fashion improved its sizes instead of pretending to become unisex and inclusive?

You will surely have noticed: for several years, brands claim to offer non-gender collections as if it were a sign of progressive modernity. Like Zara with Ungendered in 2016, H&M in collaboration with Eytys in 2019, Gucci with the Mx category of its eshop since 2020, or Tan France (from Queer eye) with its unisex coats in autumn 2021.

We may be excited by this effort to make the plurality of gender identities and expressions visible, but did the first few interested people really expect us to rebrand shelves and labels? And especially, beyond the facade symbols, has the reality of the clothes thus designated really changed?

“Unisex”: men’s fashion aimed at women, and rarely vice versa

Very often, in fact, the clothes in question are mainly garments from the traditional male wardrobe, such as joggers, hooded sweatshirts, blazers or military-derived coats, which are then also presented on bodies perceived as feminine. Revolution? Not really, since it does centuries that women have appropriated the clothes of powernamely those attributed to the socially dominant gender, nicknamed the “stronger sex” (cf. the peacoat, the tuxedo, or even the marinière).

Meanwhile, it remains much rarer, as a possible source of societal marginalization, to find flamboyant clothing worn by bodies socially perceived as male. Because the social gaze will tend to see it as a lowering, since it attributes the concern for ornament to women, the “weaker sex”.

Furthermore, the wardrobe of what is also defined as the “fairer sex” (which speaks volumes about the aesthetic pressures incumbent upon them) has the unfortunate tendency to lack practicality: hello, non-existent, fake or too small pockets, décolleté with painful heels and other leotards that cannot be unbuttoned at the crotch. I guess it’s done on purpose…

Disclosure: yes, of course it’s on purpose hinder, complicate and sell more, in fact. For example, offering clothes without pockets will definitely sell more bags, CQFD.

Personally I was assigned a boy at birth and for almost fifteen years now I have been dealing mainly with women’s clothing. What could have slowed me down was never the name of the department in a physical store or the category on an eshop, but perhaps the disapproving looks of the sales staff (and also in the public space of course), the possible ban on trying on clothes in the booths which are deemed not to fit my assumed gender identity, and especially the meager (pun intended) range of sizes on offer.

Gender Issues in Fashion: Extending the Dominance of Marketing Struggles

What questions me and above all tires me (and I’m far from being the only person in this case), is why brands pretend to be interested in people who want to dress as they see fit, no matter what. perspective of identity and expression, while the material reality of clothes and access to them does not follow?

In other words, why such a dissonance between the speeches and images displayed versus what can actually be found or not? For image and marketing, therefore money, of course.

On the other side of the Atlantic, José Criales-Unzueta asks himself the same question and protests against this sad observation. This Bolivian fashion design graduate from the Savannah College of Art and Design in the State of Georgia, USA, passed by Fossil, Kate Spade, Gap, and now Coach, has just signed a long platform on the specialized media Fashion businessnamed ” The key element that most genderless fashion brands lack “.

Well placed to know, José Criales-Unzueta notes how many brands are inspired by people who don’t conform to gender norms (often referred to as ” Methane » in English for non-conforming genderthe generic term consecrated) to imagine collections, or even a pretend you’re talking directly to them to appear inclusive, progressive, and forward-thinking.

“Why is the emphasis on aesthetics and not on dimensions? »

Yet the resulting garments rarely stretch beyond approximately size 40, especially when it comes to stretch knits or tracksuit sets. Additionally, these clothes are mostly featured on people with model measurements, even though their gender expression can be flamboyant. This is what leads José Criales-Unzueta to wonder:

” Why is the focus only on the aesthetics and not on the dimensions? Because, in the end, what should matter is not how the clothes look on a model size model, but on our body [de la vraie vie]. »

But this question turns out to be rhetorical as the answer seems obvious: to appear cool, open, while continuing to correspond to the standards of beauty in force, and therefore not to take too many risks, in order to earn more. Making the usual clothes in standard sizes, but labeling them differently and having them worn differently is enough to give an impression of innovation.

“Being gender inclusive means considering the nuances of different bodies”

For designer, consultant and fashion journalist José Criales-Unzueta, the possible solutions seem simple, yet rarely applied by brands pretending to want fashion emancipated from overly binary gender norms:

” If brands are serious about creating a gender-neutral industry, they need to commit to right-sizing and tailoring alternatives to their products. Few do, even though the number of labels aimed at gender non-conforming people is growing.

Some bodies have bumps and shapes where others don’t, and as designers we are trained to identify and address them, to accentuate or soften them through the placement of cuts and seams.

Be gender inclusive [inclusif au niveau des genres] it’s not about cutting the same pants two sizes up or simply launching a series of androgynous-looking models. It’s about considering the nuances of different bodies and designing for them. »

The bad idea of ​​creating new gender categories in fashion

In fact, brands sensationally connect the good speeches using identities as if they were unique password trendy (like agender, ungendered, gender-free and other non-binary). This, not really to address the interested parties, but for them assign products which they didn’t necessarily ask. However, this becomes a new way to lock them in boxes other than just “men” or “women,” continues José Criales-Unzueta:

” When brands create a third option and separate collections, they are still modifying the design of gender non-conforming people. It is a way of telling them that “the rest is not for them”.

[…] The task is not to add separate options that categorize and divide us, but to erase the gap that limits us to experiencing fashion on our own terms. »

More sizes in what already exists would help plus size people as well

For José Criales-Unzueta as for me, and perhaps for you, the clothes and accessories we dream of surely already exist, no matter if they are labeled or stored in the men’s or women’s department, Or other. What gets stuck too often is finding them in a wider range of sizes and think differently about their design so that it flatters more morphologies.

Stupid as hell, this possible solution could please many more people beyond those who don’t fit into traditional ray-dress gender norms, starting with people who have to limit themselves to the “plus size” or plus size offer.

In other words, rather than invent yet another additional shelves for marketing purposes, what if brands start by adapting to as many people as possible what we already want?

Front page photo credit: Instagram of Harry Styles, often touted as the spearhead of more flamboyant gender expression by the fashion industry that definitely takes us for clowns.