|
|
|
|
|
by wizzwizz4
546 days ago
|
|
From a pragmatic perspective, the site's current approach is flawed; but identity is independent of body type, so I don't think yours is the right criticism. If the purpose is to fit different body types, there is overlap between "male" and "female". Trans / intersex people, sure, but even just considering cis endosex people: there are thin, gynecomastic men, and buff, broad-shouldered women. If I regularly have to shop in the men's section, am I supposed to select "male"? The women's "plus size" on this website is a fairly average build. (The people most likely to need a website like this are the outliers.) I get that you can't do much if the photographs don't exist, so it's not like I'm proposing a solution. |
|
Like old-school media reviews: not everyone agrees with Roger Ebert's film criticism, but after reading his reviews of films they've watched, most people can read a review of his and have a reasonable idea what they will think of the film.