!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Shapes need to be different, as others have already said. So men's and women's clothes do need different construction. But sizes could be just measurements. Absolutely. Yes.
Shoes, no. They should all be length in cm and then a narrow, medium, wide, xwide.
Generally, women are going to have boobs and wider hips and men generally have bigger feet. Obviously there's a massive spectrum of human body shapes, but this is the main differentiation.
If I wear my (male) partner's t-shirts, they're just straight with no space for boobs and they don't come in at the waist. Same with trousers, there's a massive pouch in the crotch, too narrow on my hips and too loose at the waist. People like to wear things that best fit their bodies.
Stuff like ski boots, too. Men and women apparently have muscle groups placed in slightly different areas, so the boots are sculpted differently to account for that.
Style/cut is different than the measurements though.
It isn't about style. Women's sizes (e.g. 8, 10, 12) originally came from codes based on the variations between hip, waist and bust measurements.
It's a shortcut for measurements.
It's easier to shop "Men's L" or 32x32 pants than remember a lot of measurements.
I think it's different if you want your clothes to fit a specific way, but for my shopping I want to minimize the time spent shopping and get "good enough". That's how we end up in minimal measurements.
I think ideally we'd have both sets: the minimal measurement and the maximalist ones for the same garment.
Because men and women have different body shapes. A small man and woman may need the same size but certainly not the same cut.
E: nvm i skipped over you talking about body shapes. Yes I'd agree that there should be more options, but even an overweight man will likely need and want a different cut than a woman of similar proportions. So the distinction between genders still makes sense, just that each needs to accommodate more body types.
Tradition plays a huge part in it.
Why do so many women's dresses zip up the back? Because servants used to be a thing. Same reason women's shirts button differently than men's; someone else was supposed to be dressing the lady.
Even fifty years ago in New York a man could be arrested for wearing something the police considered "women's clothes." and NYC was considered a loose town with easy morals
The zipper in th3 back also helps if you have a big chest and don't want it bifurcated by a zipper.
And you can't put that same zipper (if it goes all the way up the back) on the side... if you have wide hips.
So at least that still has reason to exist.
Source: my own body and never wearing a front-faced zipper after seeing why we don't do that.
This really depends on the clothes. Shoes should absolutely have a single sizing system and I would love for all pants to use waist/leg measurements like jeans do. But many other garments are completely reasonable to separate based on gender (or sex, rather), primarily tops due to the fact of boobs existing and even pants like I mentioned are able to have tighter crotches on a women's size.
In many parts of the world, shoe sizes are unified (cm or mm). They still use the labels for men and women for style but, so far as I know, they're otherwise the same (unless the widths differ, but those are also standardized in many places so you might get like a 25.5e for 25.5cm width e)
Shoes are pretty easy to guesstimate for US sizes if you have average feet (width being the biggest reason this fails). Men size is basically women size plus 1.5. This doesn't work if you have a large foot size though, since women's dont go up to the same max as men's
Clothes are 100% a pain. Especially online shopping
I just wish there wasn't so much guesstimating required. I stopped growing a while back and yet I've fit an 11, 11.5, and 11W, depending on the shoe. I wish it was a bit more standardised based on length and width. I've never shopped online for shoes because I know they probably won't fit right!
My man-boobs would like a word.
Usually you want to hide your man boobs, women's clothing usually aims for the opposite.
Well, depending on who you ask, vanity or capitalism.
Women's sizes were chosen.
Men's sizes are typically measurements, usually waist × inseam and neck × sleeve × chest
Women's sizes are harder because they have a wider range of measurements needed to get a good fit. Bust size, waist size, and hip size can have different ratios to each other, even when the waist size is the same. So, Wanda might have a 20 inch waist, a 58 bust and a 36 hip measurement. But her sister June might be 20 waist, 36 bust and 58 hips. Obviously, clothing measured the way men's is wouldn't give as reliable a guide.
So, way back when mass produced clothing came onto the scene with standardized sizes, something needed to be picked.
Turns out that a size 6 sells better than a size 20, even if the actual measurements are exactly the same. Not that men's clothing is immune from vanity capitalism, you should see the clusterduck that is XL sizing.
But, with "dressy" clothing, mens shirts are usually going to be measured. Women's sizing, particularly dresses and pants, they go by the fairly arbitrary numeric system based on ratios. Just don't ask me how it was calculated originally, I never cared enough to find out.
Thing is, while those sizes were originally meant to standardize things, that no longer works. You go get a size 6 in one store, hold it up against a size 8 from another, and they'll be the same measurements. Why? Because they're playing a numbers game based on vanity. Some places, a size 6 is unrecognizable as an actual size, it's just so far off from the median.
Also, I use size 6 a lot because it was, at one point, the "default" size for models and mannequins. I think that's changed, but it stuck in my head, so I tend to pull it up as a baseline example. I know it's usually what's used for fitting models, which is a whole thing of its own. It varies a lot more nowadays for runway and catalog work though. Height is more important in catalog work afaik.
Anyway, tangent aside, shoes are a bit more practical. Women's feet have a slightly different set of angles, so just a toe-to-heel measure wouldn't work exactly the same between men's and women's feet. I can't recall the exact points where measurements occur to get the different sizes, but that's what it comes down to. You have to measure the feet differently to get a good fit.
Which is the overall why none of the clothing sizes will cross over well.
Yeah, a men's XL is going to fit a woman with a given bust measurement about the same as a women's xxl (iirc, don't hold the exact conversion as fact, I'm just pulling from memory here), but they may not fit the same.
A men's dress shirt is going to fit a woman horribly, even if it's the right chest or neck diameter. It'll be cut for a bigger waist, with longer arms. But a woman's dress shirt will fit z better*, because that's taken into account.
Funnily enough, men that lift a lot of weights end up having trouble fitting men's clothing sizes as well. You get something that fits your chest, it won't fit your waist (unless you're a power lifter, where you tend to see less difference between chest and waist than in bodybuilder circles), and it may not fit your neck worth a damn. Buy for the neck size, your sleeves can be baggy.
The patterns used don't scale up the same as the human body does as it puts on muscle. It's still not as big of a pain in the ass as it is for women with significant differences, but it is a pain in the ass lol. I've never been able to buy a suit off the rack. I've only had a few, but they all had to be tailored.
Funnily enough, men that lift a lot of weights end up having trouble fitting men’s clothing sizes as well. You get something that fits your chest, it won’t fit your waist (unless you’re a power lifter, where you tend to see less difference between chest and waist than in bodybuilder circles), and it may not fit your neck worth a damn. Buy for the neck size, your sleeves can be baggy.
It is even worse that that. There is plenty of variation in body types and how manufacturers design their clothes so that being fit or just slightly fat has less impact on whether something fits than whether they even design for your body type.
I tend to avoid long sleeves because I have lengthy gorilla arms, which hasn't changed even as I've put on weight over the decades. Hard enough to find something that is long enough for my torso.
Yeah, that's part of why I shifted to baggy stuff. More comfortable, easier to shop for.
Yeah I have shoes ranging from 46 all the way to 51 on the french scale for size. (They all fit me about the same). Same with tshirts ranging from M to XL pretry much the same size.
Take shoes for example. Why is a uk men's size 10 so wildly different from a UK women's size 10?
EU shoe sizes aren't different based off gender; women just tend to have size 37 when men tend to have size 42.
Have you seen a woman? Their bodies are different, clothes are cut differently. What the hell man. Im surprised this is a serious post. :)
How are you going to go into a shop and get clothes for your "body shape" in the scenario that there are no male or female clothes?
You can do this if you custom order a suite from a tailor but not when you shop for sweaters in the shop....
There are a million things that only women wear also.
Desired profile and fit are different.
I “passed” before HRT often just by wearing men’s clothes. The way that pants shape your butt is very different. I occasionally thrift women’s blouses and think I pull them off well, but these are ones from the 80’s and 90’s with the more “triangular” frame.
Women’s sizing is an incoherent mess. Men’s sizing at least in theory should be based on measurements. Historically, you would have been expected to have your clothes adjusted by a tailor anyway - this world of fast fashion, “ready to wear” means most of us are walking around with clothes that fit us poorly. Mass produced clothes are trying to fit some sort of “average” person, and none of us have a perfectly average body.
As far as shoes - there’s differences in shape and men’s feet on the whole tend to be larger. I think toebox proportions are different.
(The real danger of a “mixed gender” shopping section would be people realizing how shit women’s clothing is. Cheap flimsy material, lacking pockets, constructed to fall apart with a stiff breeze - designed to be disposed of. Shoes being designed with no thought for comfort or long term health…)
I mean, a men's size 10 is wildly different to some other brands size 10
Like others already mentioned, they don’t just differ in size, but in shape as well. What I would prefer is different varieties for each size per sex. For example, I am an Asian medium. So when buying shirts in the US, I’m in that weird spot where a US medium is too wide on the shoulders and the sleeves too big, but the torso is just right. On the other hand, a US small fits just right on the shoulder width and sleeves, but the torso is too tight. It would be great if there are variations based on build as well like pants (i.e. slim, standard, wide, etc.).
That's why I like Levis pants. Lots of different fit options
Sounds like I am the opposite of you, as I have broad shoulders and long ass gorilla arms and torso so I end up needing to hunt down the long/tall version of XL sized clothes for most brands.
I would love something for regular clothes that was more like dress clothes with multiple measurements to work with like sleeve length, shoulder, neck, etc. to more easily find what brands design for my body type. Hurley for example is an excellent fit the vast majority of the time for me, and I'm not a cut sports guy.
Tell me about it. It’s an exercise in frustration to find good fitting clothes as a trans woman because most clothes don’t come with a sizing table and if they do they skip the most important measurement for me: shoulders.
Or it can be a real punch in the gut when the description includes what size the model in the photos is wearing. For example the model is the same size as me (1.74m) and wears a size S. And I’m like great I will take that in L or XL…
I would have to speculate, but I think it's due to averages.
The average woman is much smaller than the average man. There are a handful of sizes that will fit most women, and a handful for men. Think of a standard distribution: there will be outliers, but most are in a certain range.
Over many decades, even centuries, sizing is more rigidly codified as larger scale production of textiles/shoes becomes common, but of course this sizing doesn't apply to everyone for various reasons, so things such as vanity sizing and regional/manufacturing differences created an even bigger mess.
Not to mention that people are fatter now because of the caloric density of modern food, so it's relatively common now that even really short people can be very wide. Plus sizing is also a huge clusterfuck.
Another factor is fit and cut, but this comment is already too long to get into that.
I worked for a clothing store in college. I leaned that each store / clothing producer has an ideal body shape they cut the clothes for, with some variation. The higher end store you shop at, the fewer variations.
Higher end shops usually cater to a specific body shape and size. Those clothes will fit a handful of people extremely well. Big box stores will have clothes that fit everyone, but that fit will be so-so for everyone.
Yeah, it's kind of annoying that women basically have their clothes sizes randomized and you have to look at their size chart online anyway.
At least when I go buy pants (as a man), I can reasonably assume that almost any pair I get off the rack is labelled by hip circumference and instep and roughly the size I'm expecting. Though there's a decent amount of vanity sizing in a lot of men's clothes these days too.
Resisting the urge to downvoted because this is a great question for this sub.
A lot of it is historical and never changed for 100+ years. Same reason buttons are on opposite sides on men and women garments.
Why do you have the urge to down vote?
Marketing
To charge women more? The pink tax is real