"Why don't they just put all of the clothes that are predominantly wore by African Americans and stick them in one section, or put all of the clearance items in another section and label it "low-income families?"

That's a pretty incredible leap there... You know, from clothes that you can/can't theoretically fit into to clothes that a different ethnic/economic group wears most of the time. I don't think it's the same concept at all. It's more "these will fit" and "these probably won't."

The plus size section for men is an entirely different store, "Big and Tall." Men aren't the shoppers that women are "supposed" to be (societal assumption/training not bio fact), so the stores don't have an economic reason for stocking plus sized men's clothing in the same way that they do women's.

When I worked at a bookstore, a black woman asked why we didn't keep all of the black fiction together.

I went to the bridal event at Filene's Basement on Friday and none of the dresses were organized by size. It was sad because I'd see a dress that I liked and would pick it up to see that it was a size 20 or a size 4. That didn't benefit anyone.

Are you bothered that they usually put all of the petite clothes together too? I don't see this as discrimination because it's a function of the store to make it easy for shoppers to find clothes. They put all of the maternity clothes together too. Ditto for the underwear section and gym clothes. A lot of stores are organized this way, probably because they've done research and found that it's not fun for bigger women to have to sort through size 2's and 4's and 6's, the same way I didn't enjoy having to sort wedding dresses.

When I worked at a bookstore, a black woman asked why we didn't keep all of the black fiction together.

In Britain, that's not that uncommon. I mean, there'll be copies in the "poetry" or "literature" or "crime", or what have you, but they'll also be grouped together in a "black literature" section.

Why don't they just put all of the clothes that are predominantly wore by African Americans and stick them in one section, or put all of the clearance items in another section and label it "low-income families?

The section for "low-income" families is called Wal-Mart. Higher-income families would be more likely to shop at specialty clothing stores (Banana Republic, Old Navy or The Gap).

I work at a small locally owned clothes store, and we're actually in the process of creating a section for curvy women. This is because so many times curvaceous women have come into our store and said "Oh I love this but it's not in my size." The store I work in is in a college town and we have a high demand for smaller sizes. However we are finding just as a strong demand for women to have larger sizes. It's mostly about supply and demand. I also think it would be wonderful for women to go to a section where there are really attractive clothes that they KNOW will fit. We are advertising for it with ads that feature women with healthy fuller body types which I believe sends a positive message.

As a "plus-sized woman", I usually like this kind of sections.
For one, as it was told, you know you will find something that fits.
For second, there are things a can wear that would be ridiculous on thinner women (and reciprocally).
That's especially true for bras: a "plus sized" bra has absolutely no utility if it was designed for small breasts (not supporting much, for example).
Plus sized clothes are more than just "regular" clothes a size higher...

The "plus-sized" section for men is usually referred to as "Big 'n Tall", which carries an entirely different connotation.

Though, I have to admit that putting those clothes in different sections doesn't really bother me.

I'm not sure I like what jenga and Bondo said, or implied. I'm a big girl and I'm not exactly swimming in money. If you just noticed that Wal-Mart segregates the fat clothes from the Barbie clothes, I feel for you. It's always been like that. And if you notice, the fat clothes are always a couple seasons out of fashion. Because fat people don't want to look cool. Or we want to look like hos when we do.

Do I hate the separation? Obviously, but it isn't gonna change. Sometimes I'll go wandering through the Barbie section, just to marvel at how tiny the clothes are (seriously, these clothes wouldn't fit my 12 year old stick figure cousin!) and to bask in the looks of disgust the skinny chics throw me for daring to tarnish THEIR section of Wal-Mart.

I shop Wal-Mart because the only other clothes store in reasonable distance is Cato's and more often than not, they don't have my size because I'm too big. Too big for a plus sized store. How bad is that? Also, the one near me has a manager who is so snobbish and stuck up, it's disgusting. Last time I was there (over a year ago), she just gave me this look, like "God, are you fat and ugly. Why are even trying to buy anything other than sweat pants and baggy shirts? Give me your money so I can kick you out." I haven't been back since.

And again I've gone into a rant. Bugger. Sorry. I have issues.

Tonia, exaggerating things is unnecessary. I'm not plus-sized, but I'm also not a size-0 stick. I shop in non-plus-sized departments but my clothes are certainly not "Barbie" size. To call all women who are not plus-sized "Barbies" is really insulting - in the same way that you are probably often made to feel like there's nothing more to you than your size, you're doing the exact same thing to smaller-sized women with comments like that.

I do agree with you that the clothes they have for plus-sized women are usually not very stylish or attractive, which is really disgusting on the part of the clothing manufacturers. Just because someone isn't thin doesn't mean they don't want to wear nice or cute clothes!

"I'm not sure I like what jenga and Bondo said, or implied."

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to? The splitting up or the men's store part?

Or are you referring to our quoting of the original article? Because that's the only thing we said that matched...

I agree with other posters that the bigger problem might be the less stylish items in plus sizes. I am fine with sectioning off according to body type. I am neither petite or plus, but I am tall and "curvy". As in I have large chest, big butt, and big thighs. I would like a section to be tall and curvy so to make shopping easier. And there are curvy jeans, but I would like other clothing to be included, like all pants, shorts, dresses.

I have a problem with the implications that you are making with having a "black" section, or sectioning off things according to race. This would be racist and goes along with the assumption all people of a race are the same body type. Not true. Not the same thing as having a plus, petite, tall, short section.

And clearance is low income? Hmmm...Again a stretch. So you think classist and racist sections are the same as separating according to size? I shop in clearance/sale section a lot because I don't like paying sticker price. I would also be considered middle-class according to my income level. And I'm white, or at least look it, so what section would that be, because I have had comments (unwanted) in my direction that imply I have a non-white figure...

miss.meshuganer, I don't think Tonia was calling anyone "Barbie-sized", I think what she meant was that 'regular' sizes are more likely to carry "Barbie", or trendy, clothing, whereas plus sizes carry clothes from seasons ago.

I'm a size 18/20 and I also happen to be young. To find anything cute, casual, and my style, I usually have to shop online, and even then it's generally on ebay or somewhere else obscure. I hardly ever find anything in plus size stores and it's difficult to find stuff that fits in 'regular' size stores as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with a plus size section, but I wish they would put the same clothing the in plus size section. There are so many cute dresses or tops that I would love to wear, but they stop at L. Many stores that carry trendy clothes even carry XS as a 'regular size', but they don't even carry XL at ALL (like Urban Outfitters, for example). I think the biggest issue I have is that just because I'm fat doesn't mean I want to live in sweaters embroidered with cartoon characters or satin, disco-printy button up blouses.

"When I worked at a bookstore, a black woman asked why we didn't keep all of the black fiction together."

that's no different than book stores (and movie rental places) that have special "gay & lesbian" sections. sure, sometimes it's handy, but it's also not a legitamate way of organzing genres. a biography of trans-man is still a biography, a fictional novel with a gay protaganist still counts as fiction, and a romantic comedy with 2 women is STILL a comedy. but because thess books and movies contain relationships other than the heternormative hetersexual ones that are considered "normal," they need a completely different categories.

and to actually stick with the topic, i don't think there is anything wrong with seperating clothing by size, but what i hate is the completely different styles found in the "normal" women's section, and the plus-size section. that's why i like stores that carry the same styles in a lot of sizes (size 0 through 18), although i'm sure people will agree that size 18 isn't even that big.

Why don't we NOT jump on Maureen for trying to have empathy? Hmm?

I'm definitely a plus-sizer, and although sometimes it's just convenient to know where to find clothes that will fit me, it also definitely sometimes feels marginalizing. My worst experience was when I was shopping for maternity clothes, and they told me the plus size clothes are in the back- it really did seem like they had physically arranged the store so that passersby wouldn't see fat women browsing and be turned off. Other than places like Lane Bryant, which exclusively caters to plus sizes, I'd say the majority of stores have plus sizes in the back- Maureen isn't the only one who sees a problem with this. Another issue I have is when they try to sugar-coat it by calling the average sizes "ladies" and the plus-sizes "women's." Because large women aren't as genteel, or something. As others have mentioned, it's also an issue that the plus-size sections have fewer selections, tend to take up a smaller physical space, and tend to involve things like large patterns,rhinestones, and sequins far more than I'm personally comfortable with. As far as comparing it to petite sections- it could be problematic, because certainly some people are stigmatized for being small. But overall, petiteness fits into social stereotypes of femininity a lot better than plus-size-ness. Because of this difference, my hunch is that a separate plus-size section is more problematic, but this could just be because that's where my personal experience lies.

Hey all,
I work in Fashion--full disclosure-- and in many cases, stores separate their clothing into sections for shoppability purposes. It's just easier in some cases, to do that.

Someone asked why they don't make the same styles in regular sizes as they do in plus sizes? In SOME cases, it's because the design of that garment would not flatter a plus size woman.

As for why everything has rhinestones and appliques on it? Still trying to figure that one out myself. I don't get it either! I'll tell you what tho, I live in NYC and have seen some GORGEOUSLY dressed plus sized women walking around. The clothes are there, I wonder tho, if it's easier to find them in bigger cities.

One thing that many are forgetting is that separating sizes can ostracize who are shopping with friends. In department store we are often on entirely separate floors from "normal" sizes, and in malls we are relegated to specialty stores. Many of you are right when you note that nobody wants to leaf through clothes that will never fit them, but large women who are shopping with friends face just that experience when in the standard sizes. Because of the separation, there isn't even a possibility that they will see their size. I often just tell my friends I will meet them later and go to the plus sizes to browse, but I actually think that plus size clothing is designed to be less flattering to large women than if they just made regular clothes in larger sizes.

I think it is a misconception in the fashion industry that plus sized mean shapeless blob, and that all plus sized women want is to hide their fat behind shapeless garments. I think there has been an improvement recently in stores like Torrid (which, admittedly, caters to a specific segment of young women) and sometimes Lane Bryant. I also hear that FashionBug.com is good, but ordering online can be frustrating for a woman of any size so I won't even go in to that. On the other hand, stores like Express, White House Black Market, and Urban Outfitters don't carry XL or over a size 12 (though they do carry XS and 00). Gap and Banana Republic make it clear that fat people can shop online but not in stores, although their cheaper (in price and quality) counterpart, Old Navy, does carry larger sizes. I guess what I'm getting at is that somewhere along the way to "high end" clothing, fat people get pushed aside. I guess you can't be trendy if fat people shop in your store, which is why we remain relegated to discount department stores and specialty store.

I do agree that there is a problem when the selection isn't the same in regular or plus size. That said, I wish there was a lot more seperation in general of clothing sizes-have a larger petite section, a larger plus sized section etc-I don't think the solution to the problem of fat prejudice is to hide the fact that bodies come in different sizes, but to give equal status to them all. So no, don't put the plus sizes in the back all the time, but do, for the love of pete, help me find what will fit(I'm 5'2", so have problems there). and I do think there's a fundamental difference in seperating by size as opposed to . . . intended audience? I mean, you can be sure that a person with any given physical dimensions needs clothing scaled to match those dimensions. But, can you really be sure what a person will wear based on race, social class(to the extent of affording it) or anything else? not so much.

I'm a size 18 on the bottom and a size 16 on top, so a lot of times, I can't even buy a whole outfit in the same store! I love H&M, for instance, because it's both fashionable and in my price range, but I can only buy tops there because they stop at 16. Which is infuriating. So HELL yeah on putting plus sizes in with the regular sizes so I can at least buy myself a coordinated outfit like the ones on the mannequins.

And then there are the stores like Old Navy, which only sell plus-sizes online. And they claim to sell up to a straight size 20 in stores, but I've only seen up to a 14 or 16, so if I want a straight-sized 18, I also have to shop online. (And my measurements are actually a little smaller than their 16W online, so I can't buy a whole plus-size outfit there, either, since they often have entirely different straight and plus items and sizing systems).

I also call BS on the idea that plus-size women can't wear the same styles as smaller people, or that all sorts of special recalibrating voodoo has to take place to make a plus-size equivalent of a straight-size item. My proportions are pretty much the same as when I was a straight size 10; I'm just bigger. My hip/waist/boob ratio is pretty much the same as it has always been.

There is also the issue of price: it is quite possible to buy beautiful, flattering plus-size clothes, but they always, always cost more than a similar straight-size garment, and always a hell of a lot more than is needed to make up for the 'extra' fabric people often cite as a reason for the mark-up. If they can charge the same for a straight size 12 as a straight size 0, I don't see why they can't offer a wider size range and just average out the price for all sizes. Which would mean smaller people would have to pay a little more, but I assume would not go over very well.

OK, so that was a big digression. And yes, sometimes I do like being able to go right to the plus-size pants so I can grab my size and get out of the store as quickly as possible, but if I had th option to look through clothes on a rack to get the same styles, quality, and prices smaller women get, I'd give up designated plus sections in a heartbeat.

I think the fact that there isn't a men's Plus Size section is most telling. Big 'n Tall isn't the same thing, it doesn't necessarily imply fat like Plus Size does, and it's a specific store, not a trend that many stores are following. Given, women's and men's fashions are slightly different, but it's rather hard to accept that plus size sections exist for women because of different cuts when for men you can go from skinny to obese on the same rack. The same goes for the idea that it's easier to shop in them, it's not assumed that men have any trouble finding their clothes! Sorry, Wal-Mart, but fat women aren't idiots, we know how to read clothing labels and find what fits us. The problem isn't that it's all in the same section, it's that most stores simply don't stock larger sizes, or they do so very intermittently.

sjuli,

"...I actually think that plus size clothing is designed to be less flattering to large women than if they just made regular clothes in larger sizes."

i do have to agree with that. i'm a size 16 so can often buy clothes at "regular" women's clothing stores, although is was much easier when i was a size 14 as alot of stores for young women stop at that size. (i can occasionally fit into a L dress or t-shirt at urban outfitters). but quite often when i try on things at plus-size stores, addition-elle being the most common on my area, the clothes make me look alot bigger than i am, or at the very least, bigger than i look in clothes purchased from the gap.

"Gap and Banana Republic make it clear that fat people can shop online but not in stores, although their cheaper (in price and quality) counterpart, Old Navy, does carry larger sizes."

i have never purchased anything from banana republic, but the gap does carry up to size 18 in store, and they don't go up any higher on the internet. old navy also goes up to size 18 in store, and has a special plus-size section on their website that goes from sizes 16-30. i think the "secret plus-sized online clothing store" thing is downright stupid. yes, i am fat. yes, i don't like shopping in malls. but if i want to buy something from a store in the mall, then i will go to a mall with that purpose. i don't need stuff delivered right to my door. (on a side note old navy doesn't deliver to canada, despite that large amounts of stores they have here)

Before I started buying mens' clothes, I used to have to shop in the "plus-sized" department, depending on the store (because apparently a size 12 is "plus-size" at some stores...) and many of my friends end up shopping in the "plus-sized" departments and we all seem(ed) to get the same message from the store: "if you're going to be fat, be fat over here." usually with an add-on of a curtain and an extra sentence: "where no one can see you."

as for your "where are the mens' plus sized departments?" question. a lot of the time there's a big-and-tall store, but i don't know what they have there because i'm 5'4 so I'm not tall and not that big anymore (because mens' sizes go a lot higher before you're "big"...which is just plain stupid and the simplist kind of sexism there is.)

In response to the original post, as many have said, the segregation of plus sizes and "straight" sizes is mostly for ease of shopping, so you're not sifting through tons of sizes 8 and 10 to find a size 20.

Has anyone noticed that they're starting this nonsense fairly young? I mean, for girls, they have "plus size", but for boys? "Husky", which sounds more rugged and less damning than "plus size"

Funny that everybody's referring to the "plus-sized" areas of department stores, because I often notice that more and more often those sections have been succinctly renamed "women." (Full disclosure: I'm little and so never shop in those sections anyway.)

I can't recall every place I've seen this, but I know that every TJ Maxx and Marshalls I've shopped in has referred to its larger female sizes section as such. The smaller 2-16 sizes are in a section called "misses," which itself is pretty damn sexist and sounds weirdly infantilizing of women who wear those sizes. (Nevermind that many of those stores often have only a handful of garments in sizes 2 or 4, leaving thin women picking through the trendy tween stuff in the "juniors" area.)

Frankly, the euphemisms seem unnecessary: Why not put all women's clothing on the same general floor or area, with larger places divided by type of clothes (dresses, pants, whatever) and then subdivided by size only on racks within the department? Why not refer to the different size groups on each rack as "small," "medium" and "large" or as "0-8," "10-18" and "20+?"

everybodyever, I've noticed that too. Women is plus sized, Misses is "regular", and then petite. Maybe it's like the husky name for men/boys sections to have a less obvious name? I don't know.

I think this has to do with the size conscious society we live in. I agree that things being segregated by the actual size like s, m, l, xl,xxl ect with tall and short sections might be more practical, but we live in a society where women are supposed to not be ok with a size 12 or 20. Some places actually redo the sizing system for vanity so women can say they are in a size 6 but it's more like a 12.

I don't work in retail or fashion so I can't offer an expertise.

My mom was an adolescent in the early seventies, and she's told me how humiliating it was to go shopping for dresses, because she had to shop in the "CHUBBIES" section. Yes, the section was actually called CHUBBIES.

I am fine with having the plus-size/women's department being a different section, I'd much rather be able to easily and quickly find my size. My issue is with the placement and size of the plus-size departments, and their lack of appealing options.

The Macy's in downtown Houston has the entire main floor dedicated to misses/junior clothing (including petites), but the plus size section is a VERY small space in the rear corner of the third floor. Another large department store near me has the plus-sizes in a far corner on the opposite side of the children's department, not with the rest of the ladies' clothing. My local Target has had the plus size section shrink tremendously and it is now just a few racks in the corner mixed in with the clearance section.

As a result, my patronage of these stores, even for other items, is decreasing as well. Bad styles and lack of selection aside (that's a rant for another day), I should not have to hide to shop for clothes. Sure, give me a section where I can easily find sizes that will fit me, but not if I need a treasure map and compass to find the damn thing! I should not be relegated to the farthest hidden corner of the store just because I am not thin!

Agreed on the plus-size clothing being LESS flattering. I am a pear-y hourglass-y 14/16 on bottom and 12 on top, and the size 1 at Lane Bryant seems to fit me. Gap's "Long & Lean" jeans in a size 14 fit me decently (although I have to use a belt, it's cut pretty straight) and really do have a sort of elongating and structured effect, whereas jeans at Lane Bryant have this remarkable ability to make me look like I'm made out of marshmallow fluff. I've only been in there once, tried on a bunch of stuff with reasonably high hopes since I'd heard a number of curvier friends of mine speaking well of it, and left sort of horrified. On the other hand, the medium-level "curvy" thing is cut such that I don't have to wear a belt, which is kind of neat. But still. Made me look way more roly-poly than I actually am. I wonder if there's some kind of entirely different fashion "goal" in mind for plus-sized clothing, like they just give up entirely on normal fashion and go "well, how can we make fatness be cute? I know! Make it look endearingly roly-poly!" Ugh.

I personally would rather that stores carry a wide range of sizes all in one place. It's really not that hard to sort through some sizes to find the one you need, guys. It's at least way easier than this mess of separating everything out and making things incredibly confusing for those of us who are on the biggest end of "misses" (ugh) and the smallest end of "womens" (also ugh).

On men's "plus-sizes" -- it's called normal men's clothing most of the time. In my experience at least, guys on the thinner side have a really hard time finding clothing that actually fits well and doesn't billow off of them, it's just harder for laypeople to notice on the street because we won't immediately take baggy clothing on a guy as problematic.

Yeah, I hear you Idiolect.

I tend to find it really really hard to find any clothes at all to fit my size 14 butt and 12/14 upper half. I'm way too small for plus sizes, but it is sooooo difficult to find decent clothes in stores that fit (or even come in anything larger that maybe a 10 or 12.) I've even gotten the creepy feeling that its been getting worse to find those sizes lately, but aybe it's just my luck.

I shop theBig and Tall section, but insofar I can remember that’s a brand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the majority of stores organized their clothes by manufacturer. L.E.I, Mary-Kate and Ashley, Carhart, Columbia, Fubu, South Pole, et al? If you cant find the clothes you want maybe you ought to complain to the manufacturer? Separating clothes department by size makes sense to me. I hate looking for the right combo of length and size; it seems eveone with my waist size is so short.

Well I don't have any experience shopping as a plus-size woman, I can definitely inderstand your frustrations with finding sizes. My bottom half measures as medium, my waist as extra small, and my boobs as medium to large, depending on the company. It is nearly impossible to find appropriately sized outfits, especially at 5'2".

With tops I usually do OK since I'm average and shirts and blouses that aren't tailored to be very snug don't sag over my tiny breasts.

With trousers, I've noticed that which size number I am varies from brand to brand and even from style to style within a brand :/ so now when I go trousers shopping I don't spend a lot of time browsing. I browse a little and then go to a clerk (or call, if I'm browsing an online store) and ask if she or he has a few minutes free. If she or he does then I mention my problem finding stuff that's not too tight for my hips or too loose for my waist, ask ask her or him what she or he thinks would fit me there. It was especially helpful when I called dockers.com .

For those of you who defend this practice on grounds of "shopability":

The problems are how we define "plus size" and what makes it a legitimate category. This varies between countries, individual stores and even garments. Thus, this system would only make shopping easier if everyone had a clear idea of what sizes they wore in every article of clothing they were interested in buying at every store they were interested in shopping at.

It might cause a particular "shopability" issue for those who are on the cusp of plus size and non-plus size, who may have to check two sections instead of one (especially if they're unfamiliar with the store in question).

I'd like to emphasize also that I do sense a certain kind of weird perhaps discriminatory issue going on beneath all this -- I don't like it, but there *is* a sort of subconscious little twitch in my brain that happens when I can't decide whether to check out normal sizes or "plus" sizes. The cultural framework surrounding all this really does seem to say that a "normal" woman wears let's say a size 12 or under, and I do experience a certain kind of momentary anxiety on that level whenever I can't find a size 14 in anything at a store -- as if there's a real divide, one so stark as to imply that either I lose some weight and get down to a size 12 or 10, or I am a circus freak who doesn't deserve to wear normal people clothing. I don't actually *believe* any of this, but that little socially conditioned flinch is definitely there.

What I love is stores (coughTargetCough) that think maternity and plus size are the same thing and section them off together. And then to add insult to injury, make CUTER clothes for the pregnant women.

I like shopping at my fat lady stores(lane bryant and Torrid.) I don't feel pressure like I do when I go to Target or Walmart and have to see skinnier girls finding things that look right easier. Plus although the things are not always the most stylish at least they are cut with a bigger girls proportion in mind.

Old Navy is another story. When they debuted the actual "plus-size" line a few years ago I was stoked. Cheap and simply styish clothes! Awesome. Then I found out it was only in select stores(yeah there was only three stores in the whole of southern california and they were all near each other in the lower income areas.) then when they didn't make the money they expected they moved it to online only. Gah!!! Most bigger girls I know can't shop online. I need to try these things on, I'm not hanger shaped. They also made it so you can't return to store, so if it doesn't fit, you have to wait another two weeks to send it back, and two more weeks to get the size you need. Plus the colors online never look like the real colors.

Lane Bryant's new jean line is kind of amazing. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but at least their are now 3 different shapes instead of just one!! It's still a work in progress, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I think all clothes should be like this, for all people and all sizes and all shapes.

whipdizzy, it's good to see a fellow Houstonian!

Though I am only a size 4, I definitely feel for you that are deemed as "plus sized" by these stores.

In the "juniors" section (which is where my mother buys my clothes... yeah I'm 17) the style of clothes are very... immature. If I want to find more serious clothes, I must go to the women's section, and none of the clothes there seem to flatter me either.

So even though I am not "plus sized", I still have my complaints. I can only imagine how it must be for the ladies with larger sizes.

i'm kind of late to comment but i just wanted to note that last time i was at bloomingdales in NYC i was pretty disgusted when i found out that they kept all of their plus sized clothes separate and in the basement of the department store... where the lighting is suddenly a bit more fluorescent. there are janitors just sort of hanging out- and everything gets a bit more Kmarty and less bloomingdaley... ... also, there is an official bloomingdales cafe type thing right next door to add insult to injury maybe?. this all struck me as so horrible as to be kind of funny because that's how i handle absurdities. it was just too obvious. at least try to be subtle with your disgust of fat women....

I do agree with one thing. Shopping in the plus-sized section can be scary and intimidating. Even looking at sizes 13 or 14 even. I go from a size 10-13 depending on the store and pants. Because society has pushed us to be basically invisible it's a tiny bit uncomfortable to be looking at bigger clothing than what the skinny girl next to you at the rack is. Sometimes its made me feel horrible. But I'm working on it and all of us bigger girls should...embrace the curves and your body. It's great and the clothes are just there to enhance it, not ruin it. Plus, the size doesn't matter, it's the fit and how you feel in it.

I also feel it's more of a organization move than anything discriminating.