They're literally conspiring against you

This isn't just a problem with women's jeans which have arbitrary size numbers. Even men's jeans which are size by the actual waist and inseam measurement can be wrong. In addition to vanity sizing, cheaper jeans are also made from larger material cuts out of the patterns at the same time to save manufacturing cost sometimes twice as many as shown here:

Those at the top or bottom of the stack may end up a bit smaller or a bit larger than the pattern, but they all get marked with the same size.

Whether it was this manufacturing problem or vanity sizing, this is why I stopped buying Old Navy jeans. I could pick out 3 jeans all labeled with the same size and one would fit okay, one would be too small, and one too large. I have never had this problem with Eddie Bauer jeans.

Edit: I found picture showing the larger stacks (which can introduce the mismatched sizing) I was referring to:

Holy shit. This man jeans.
This is fascinating! thanks for the pics, it makes so much sense.
- The only question is why they are making jeans with wax instead of denim
The ultimate jeans post
Even men’s jeans which are size by the actual waist and inseam measurement can be wrong.
They're not generally sized by the actual waist measurement. I wear 33W and my pants all measure about 36" around the belt line. The "waist" measurement derives from many decades ago when men wore high-waisted pants where the waist was a few inches smaller than the circumference around the hips, where waistlines are today. Men were also generally a lot fitter back then, too!
Is that then called a jeack?
Dickes's work pants are always like this, horribly inconsistent. But they were cheap and they last forever so you just have to grab a pile of the same size, try them all on and buy the ones that fit. Good luck ordering online...

Even for men’s clothes the sizing seems to only really be consistent within the same item, maybe brand. Even though they’re supposed to be measurements you still have to try everything on.

We haven't even talked about kids clothing yet....ohhh boyyy does that one suck
- Being the kid sucks worse
  You're dragged around the store as a living mannequin, while simultaneously being bored out of your mind
I was in a clothing store last week that only started at L for mens clothing. Theres also a shoe store closeby that only sells mens shoes for 40 (EU) and above.
Like wtf, there are plenty of men that are smaller than 180cm and that have small feet. At least give me some options. These are the same stores that complain that everybody orders their shit online nowadays.
- Maybe those are specifically for big people, it's really hard for them to find suitable sizes in regular stores.
- Yeah! Last time I go into a store called “Destination XL.”
  (I’m joking, I saw the rest of your comments about this.)
Really? I've been buying the same size of trousers since I stopped growing. And I only went up one size for some upper body garments because I put on quite a bit of muscle.
- I was buying pants the other day and I was a 34 in one brand and a 36 in another.
I bought 4 polo shirts from the same brand, 2 black, 2 white. All of them in small. Black fits perfectly but white seems like its 2 sizes too big. Worst part is that small is their smallest size... But I'm trying to fix it with a reverse diet.

I know this is a problem, as I see my wife deal with it frequently.

But understand that men's sizes aren't consistent either. I have a 32" waist...maybe. Some jeans and shorts fit me perfectly, some are way too tight, and some are way too loose. Even within the same brand and product. The jeans I have on today are pretty good for fit. A different pair of jeans I was wearing a few days ago required regular adjustments to keep from falling down. My weight hasn't varied THAT much.

The situation for men isn't as bad as women's sizes, though. I'd love to know how they think they can compress all of the different measurements a woman's body can have into a single number. At least they haven't tried that with men - for example, pants are waist and inseam length, so you can usually get what you need, or at least pretty close (notwithstanding the above issue). If they condensed that into one number, I have no idea how that would work.

Yeah as a trans woman it was bittersweet when my hips stopped fitting in men's jeans. They're sturdier with bigger pockets and way more (but not really) consistently sized.
The problem in men's sizes is tolerances in fabric cutting as they stack more and more sheets per cut. Women's clothes do that while also playing calvinball.
All this means rhat as a long legged skinny girl with thick thighs, biker's calves, and an ass I'd only trade while pant shopping, pant shopping is a long pain in the ass.
- Big and Tall brands don't give waistband sizes often anymore in my experience. They just add xs to ls now
There's a slightly better balance with consistency for men's clothes because styles and patterns don't need to change as frequently.
That being said, it varies by brand and varies more when the brand is lower quality. Old Navy clothes might as well be sized "No way," "I dunno," "maybe, well, no," and "Woah, way too big." But something higher end like BR will be consistent with themselves on things like jeans that rarely change. All the people in some sweatshop in Bangladesh have the patterns down doing the same thing for years.
I'm a size M guy, everything from head to toe is M. If M doesn't fit, I will try S, but most of the time that is too small, so I just skip that fit or brand. Sometimes the size difference is so ridiculous it might as well be two different shirts. One time I tried a polo in M and it looked like an oversized 90s hip‑hop shirt on me so I tried the S and it was so tight it looked like swimwear lol.

Men's pants too. And at the same store, by the EXACT SAME maker.

I have 34's, 36's and 38's in different colours and materials. They all fit comfortably, and if i get different sizes in those particular styles, they're either too big or too small.

Make it make sense, please.

I've literally purchased 2 identical pairs and they've still been different sizes
One relevant fact about men's pants is that the W (waist) size dates from the 1930s and 1940s when men wore high-waisted pants. The actual waist measurement was always about 3" smaller than the circumference around the hips; as the waistline of men's pants migrated downwards to where it is today, manufacturers kept the nominal W measurement of how big the waistline would have been if it had still been higher. I generally wear pants with a 33W but the actual circumference around the belt line is always around 36". It's not vanity sizing so much as anachronistic sizing.
There was a comedian a few decades ago who had a routine about how the aging process in men means your pants start migrating up towards your neck, but in reality it was just old men continuing to wear the kind of pants they had gotten used to as young men. It's a common phenomenon - I work with a bunch of women in their late 50s and early 60s and they all still have feathered haircuts like women did in the late 1970s and 1980s.
That's just poor quality control.
- Yes, that’s exactly what it is.
  Which brand has good quality control?
You gained weight after the first purchase, and then converted the fat to muscle in the second purchase
- Schrodinger's body composition: fat or muscle depending on what pair of pants you wear.

i know the author is only familiar with their own experiences and i don't expect them to know the other side but this is definitely not exclusive to women's clothes. every brand just uses their own sizes for everything from hats to pants to shoes.

Some woman shop for/wear "men's" clothes, either because they shop for the men in their life, or for themselves because the standards are more sensible (even if not perfect) compared to women's sizing. In other situations, we wear "men's" cut clothes because it's the default - like when a workplace gives everyone a free T-shirt. 9 times out of 10, it's probably a cut designed for men - even if the workplace has a majority of women (as was the case when I worked in a nursing home.)
At least for pants, a lot of men's pants sizes usually go off a band + length measurement, which is a ratio that women's clothes don't offer at all. T-shirts can be bad either way, but I once grabbed two ("women's") shirts off the same rack in a store and both fit me perfectly - one was Small, the other was Extra Large. I've never seen that bad of a difference when trying on "men's" clothes, and that's part of why I prefer to buy from the men's section. It's more sensible.
So yeah, vanity sizing hurts everyone. But unless you do shop for both men's and women's clothes, it's hard to appreciate just how awful vanity sizing is for women in particular.
Shoes are there worst. I need EE width. Some brands, the"Wide Fit" works. Others, "Extra Wide". And that doesn't even address how extremely difficult it is to even find wide shoes in-store nowadays.

I really want a law that requires clothes sizes to use actual, verifiable measurements.

yeah hope they'll get right on that, add it to the list. we've already got one on the list: pass a law saying you cant shrink portion sizes on your labels until you can say "zero calories" in each of 1000 servings of oil
Its not hard to have a waist circumference then short/mid/long. I think that's how overalls are sized - in practice its try them on & allow for shrinkage after a couple of washes.

I just want to see more women's clothes with pockets.

Big pockets! Bigger than a chapstick
Sew your own
There's a ton of tutorials on YT, and a basic sewing machine is like $80
(Not to say that women's pants shouldn't have decent pockets, just that you're not forced to deal with them)
- While true, it's hardly fair that I, as a man, don't need to learn to sew, buy a sewing machine , spend time getting materials or actually doing the sewing in order to have good pockets. My pants just come with good pockets.
- That takes time, the rare spare time not everyone has and not everyone wants to spend on making a bought product useful.
- I'm time, space, and cash poor. I just want clothes I can wear.
I don't understand why women say this, then buy clothes without pockets (or without useful pockets).
- Because often the options are non existant
That's funny, I'm over here wishing for men's clothes with less pockets
- How dare you make such a dangerous wish.
  There are plenty of men’s pants with just the front and rear pockets!

This is one of many reasons I don't buy textbook economics of capitalism.

For example, if they'd just put lots of pockets in women's clothing decades ago as standard, they'd have sold SOOOO much.

This idea that capitalism and the free hand of the market will gravitate towards bulk of demand is bullshit.

Capitalism’s goal is profits. Not helping the customer, selling more, or anything else. We’re in late-stage capitalism, so it is ‘Profits Uber Alles’.
I use to work retail selling (mostly) women clothes. At one point we had the same model of sundress with and without pockets. Every one of them that was watching or trying the one without got like super hyped and excited when we told them we had it with pockets. The pocketless one still sold better. And it wasn't even a tight fitting dress, it was slack and baggy.
I read a thing (not sure if it's true) that the reason there's no pockets in women's clothing is that women have more diverse body shapes than men. Pockets are designed not to interrupt the lines of the garment where possible - it's more straightforward to place men's pockets because they're going to be in a more predictable place when worn Vs women where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly.
- where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly
  a.k.a makes the clothes fit anything but skin-tight because the pockets need space so the clothes have to be wider-cut
- Random memory unlocked: Back in high school, I had to borrow my girlfriend's jeans for some reason I don't remember. (We happened to wear the same size.) I do remember having SO MUCH room in the pockets, because I had narrower hips.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this is one instance that validates the textbook approach. In addition to the comment here, I had read several on the red site several years ago, one I remember from a buyer for a chain of outdoor gear stores, and another from the owner of a boutique clothing store. Both said that they tried to get women's clothing with real pockets, but eventually gave up because it just doesn't sell.
This topic came up in a group of my sailor friends on a boat last week, and ironically, all of the women's garments had good pockets, so they couldn't provide an example. But then, they were all wearing utilitarian clothing, rather than stylish. One friend had just bought new pants from REI; I've noticed for decades that if you want real pockets, shop at REI.
For what it's worth, stylish, form-fitting men's clothing also has tiny, or no pockets.

It's less extreme but men's clothing is like this too. I found a cut of jeans I liked in a store then ordered 4 mor pairs in different colors. None fit the same and 2 were unwearable.

I wear size 34 cargo shorts.
There is no point near my waist that is even close to a tape measured 34 inches.
- Its been a long time since I've actually been measured but I must be somewhere between 32 and 38 inches based on the pants in my closet. My 36/34 jeans fit the best. I have to wear a belt but they aren't so loose that they immediately hit the ground without on. I picked up a 34/34 pair. Same cut, wash, and color and they are wearable but they're tight at the waste and crush my balls a little when I sit. The inseam must be at least an inch shorter than the first pair.
- The wonder of "relaxed fit"
I did the same! It was not jeans but pants that is supposed to look like they are a bit more formal but are more comfortable. From the website did I just pick 3 different colors of the same size but they all fit so differently, and one pair had much thicker fabric, felt more like they went "close enough" and called it a day lol

Not just a women problem, my own jeans are 32. My workout pants are M, my work pants are size 50.

Shoes should be standardized, i have pair of converse size 39 and a pair of nike jordan's (possibly fake, not sure got them as a gift from a friend) size 44. I'm usually a 42 or 42,5.

Oh so I know about the shoe one. The sizes are standardised in length but not in width so you can have narrow fit and need a larger length in one shoe, or wide fit and a shorter length in a different shoe.
So the shoes are standardised (sort of, Europe and the US have 2 different standardised systems), but the standard is so confusing it may as well not be a standard.

I got two work shirts at the same time. Both size 44, same manufacturer, theoretically identical shirts.

Almost a full letter grade size difference, one is basically a L and the other was almost an XL.

How do they fuck up 2 supposedly identical shirts? Fucked if I know.

It's so frustrating. I've most often experienced this with two of the same item in different colors or fabrics, but not always. Once I was trying on a particular jacket at Uniqlo and the size medium was super tiny but the size small fit just right. Did they mix up the size tags sewn into the jackets, or what?
How do they fuck up 2 supposedly identical shirts? Fucked if I know.
Well, clothes are still sewn by low-paid workers in sweatshops, not industrial robots, so I guess some variation is to be expected.
Where were they manufactured?

At this point I'm wondering if the designers just roll dice and put the result on the label.

No one's mentioned bras and how they are significantly worse? Lets make arbitrary cup and band sizes, but then add in how each bra has a different shape and projection even in the same brand. Are you full on top, full on bottom, average, shallow? What about root width and height? Well you won't know if any bra will fit until you try, even changing cup and band sizes won't make a bra not made for your shape fit properly. Each brand does their own different sizing even in each bra, each global country has their own sizing system, and it is madness.

Lemmy needs a community for A Bra That Fits. It's hard to express just how bad the bra-sizing problem is in the US. It goes far and beyond vanity sizing. I don't even bother with US sizes anymore. Not only do the sizes mean next-to-nothing, but most stores only carry up to about ~ 44 DDD. Which means that many people who require different sizes end up wearing what's available - even if it doesn't fit right. When I measure myself and plug it into a bra sizing calculator, I end up with something even specialty lingerie shops don't carry. But that's not a problem for Victoria's Secret or whatever - they'll attempt to push whatever they have in stock, even if its sizing makes no sense, because their end goal is to make a sale - not to actually help you.
I suspect the powers of capitalism (aided by the internet/shopping online) have convinced most stores not to carry sizes that aren't mainstream. Yes, this even applies to boutique shops that supposedly cater to larger sizes. They don't want to keep stock that isn't likely to move, which means tons of people like me end up getting completely shafted. I could spend hours researching places, making calls, traveling across the state to find these places, find the one or two bras in the entire building that actually fit me, just to end up with a material that makes me itch or has an ugly style that only a grandma would wear. (Sexy lingerie? For massive titties? LOL good luck finding that.) I've wasted days doing this, and it's only gotten worse since Covid (when many stores moved inventory out of physical buildings and made them exclusively available online. Which defeats the point of actually going to their stores at all.) My only real option is to bra shop online, using British sizes, and fucking pray that everything will work out all right.
On top of that, bras are expensive. Prices vary with sales and all, but I'd say about $50 is average for one. Add in the scarcity aspect and the varying quality levels (that I can't afford to be picky about), and I'm lucky to own 2-3 bras that fit at any given time. I have to hand-wash and thoroughly dry my bra most nights so I can wear it again the next day without risking a yeast infection. It absolutely sucks and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.
- I agree! I was wanting a woman-oriented instance that could host things like ABTF. If I went with piefed it would help with voting being available to subscribers, but I would also like a way to have it hidden from /all. I would like to get it up and running but we'll see.
  Even when I tried Victoria's Secret, they never had pretty/sexy colors/styles in my "size" (they sized me incorrectly, too small at 34DDD). Even the calculator got me wrong and told me 34FF/F (too big). I ended up being 36E in Panache in certain styles. They are expensive, but I've been ordering it online at places that accepts returns to try on, then buy cheaper on places like ebay. I was also a 34G in Chantelle. Have you tried Polish bras? I think they are much more expensive but people on that sub were always bringing up Ewa Michalak. I haven't tried it since I've found some consistency in Panache.
  I hate hand-washing btw, I usually throw them in a washing machine with a lingerie bag and air dry them but recently tried hand-washing and fuck that noise. I'm going to try to stick with hand-washing to extend the lifespan but ugh. I also managed to scrub off one of my bras' label info on accident q.q It was so exhausting. I can't imagine having to do that every day, so sorry.
The whole "cup size" thing is so weird. Even the name "cup" makes it sound like it's based on volume, but it's not. It's the difference between a measuring tape wrapped at boob height vs a measuring tape wrapped just below the boobs. This means that a 36A and a 28E might have the same volume of breast tissue but wildly different "cup sizes". It really seems like the whole thing would be a lot easier to manage if there were just a "breast volume" measurement and a "band length" measurement.

If anyone is down for a fascinating video essay about this by a textile historian: Standardized Sizes Ruined our Clothing Quality

Have you ever wondered how we let clothing quality get so bad? It wasn't just desperation for cheaper options- the 18th century consumer would never have been willing to pay so much for such poor quality cloth. And yet, they stayed clothed. Even their cheaper options lasting years of hard wear. But they knew what quality looked like and for the most part, we don't.

When did we forget how to shop for good clothing rather than just trendy? What makes clothing "high quality" is so complex and nearly impossible to track with online shopping. Even in person, it's not a simple answer. But it used to be that more money meant more quality, plain and simple. Where did we mess up this system? Turns out, standardized sizing allowed (and even encouraged) far more than just issues with poor fit and body image.

Back in the day you'd get a pair of jeans and they'd tailor it to your needs. If it was high quality materials I'd pay 200€ for a pair. Much cheaper than 5 x 60-80€ for bad / low quality crap.
My guess is that's more about fashion than not knowing how to buy good quality things.
In ye olde days, like the 1950s, jeans were jeans, and a pair that lasted years was great. Then in the 1980s trends started emerging like stone washed jeans, or acid washed jeans. Then there were the boot cut, tapered leg, loose cut, baggy, bell-bottom, and all kinds of other trendy cuts.
What's the point in buying a $200 pair of jeans that will last decades if they'll be out of fashion in 5 years?
High quality clothing is still out there, but it's not fashion clothing, it's work clothes. If you go to a store that caters to construction workers, factory workers, or other people who have to wear durable clothes as part of their job, you can still get stuff that lasts a very long time.

"outside straight sizes" wat? they have gay sizes too?

Shopping for trousers as a fat kid before elastic waistbands became mainstream on "regular" clothes was an extended humiliation. "The waist is too tight! the legs are too long!" No, I'm just fucking deformed because I'm fat.

Straight sizes (xs - xxxl) vs Plus sizes (0x - 5x)
Designers create garments for one size (typically Large), and then scale it down and up for the other sizes, but above a certain threshold that doesn’t proportion correctly, so plus sizes are scaled from 2x.
The term “straight” here was originally opposed to curved.
- Thank you
I used to be a "husky" kid. Now I have the opposite problem - so difficult to find 34x34 in thrift shops/marketplace. Seems everyone my height has more waistline than inseam.
- I'd smarm it up with "what's wrong with a belt/bracers" but having lost weight (then regained it) the amount of folding over that can happen for trousers that are for people much bigger than you can be quite uncomfortable

Shoes. Bought a pair of Bass shoes from the Bass online store. The shoes that arrived were completely different from the ones I ordered. The picture on the shoebox were what I wanted, but not what was in the box. Explained the issue and returned the shoes. The replacement shoes were exactly the same. I returned and gave up.

For a mechanized process with no customization; the fucking lack of standards is really maddening.

What makes you think it's so mechanised? Material is often cut on bandsaw in stacks inches thick, they're sewn on machine, sure, but manually controlled by a human. Different designers, different factories, different QA levels.
- Okay, thats fair, but it's way less fun to say 'corporatized and taylorized'
Just ordering on Amazon the same product in the same size with the same material, but you want a different color. Turns out the size is all fucked up, it’s not even the same material. But it’s a different color.
- Maybe it has pockets where the origibal didnt! Maybe it doesnt where the original did! Who can say?

There are sizes just for straight people?

Duh, the crooked ones need special clothing.

Not limited to gender. I'm stronger built than the average man and have to live with too long XXL jeans with too less ass.

It's not a women's problem it's just a clothing problem in general.

I was extremely upset the other day to find out that I need an extra large in shirts at this one store. Apparently in Next if you are tall you must also be fat other body types are impossible.

And yes I have also seen the same cut in the same store but two different colours be different sizes for the same declared size.

Womens clothing tends to be worse as even more expensive clothes are sold by dress size or the generic small/medium large and only a limited number of items offer any build variations for an item. Next typically offer a petite and a tall range for some items, but not for all and they quite rare in high street retailers offering that.
Men you tend to find a waist, length, chest, neck measurement in cm/inches, which is far more useful. A lot, but not all, of trousers with actual measurement on them also offer different lengths, and in some cases different cuts (jeans are very good for this).
Nexts shirts, like a lot of high street fashion, have two broad ranges for men, casual and formal. The former is shit for sizing as its the small/medium rubbish that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, not least because the arms are always too fucking narrow for my arms. The latter most definitely comes in a range of body fits and actual measurements.
The best clothing is sold by the actual measurements of the garment so you can actually compare against stuff that actually fits you. I typically get stuff tailored from there as I buy larger to fit my chest/shoulders and its too long. Its not expensive (about £15 for a t shirt) if you are not buying endless fast fashion garbage and buy stuff to last instead.

I knew it! I'm not crazy!

I don't wear women's clothes, but I do feel like shirt sizes are some sort of scam. I want a long shirt, yet the L and the XL are the same length. Wtf. Or when an L is longer than an XL. Granted, maybe the size is horizontal rather than vertical. But c'mon.

That's why I propose a 2d size system. Size for height and for width. Also, sizes got to mean something. Not just feels, but concrete values within a range. Or make them numbers, idk.

Length and width ought not be yoked like that, an XL shouldn't be longer, just wider. You need Short, Medium, and Tall and Extra Tall for that dimension.
I was a tall and skinny kid and the heartbreak of never having pants long enough, because the small ones were all also very short, still I feel it!
As an adult, the first time I saw a ladies size Small Tall in the shop I almost cried.
Women's bra sizes also suck, because the volume of the cups is tied to the diameter of the half circle the underwire describes, but small boobs aren't small in width, they just sit closer. Champagne glass, but small bras assume shot glass instead, basically. They need three measurements.
- Women's bra sizes also suck
  Shopping with my wife for bras is... Fun. Cups can be anywhere from a DDD to a I, bands from a 38 to a 46.
  Somehow this makes sense somewhere.
  She punched me when I sat a bra on my head and said 'try this one,' but I was right!

I didn't even know they had gay sizes.

Just buy in Temu, they put these BS sizes but there's always a chart in cm so if you know your numbers you get it right.

Same thing when I wanted Business shirts. Where I live it's all s m l bulshit. I went to Macy's online and they sell most brands by 3 measures I think, can't remember, it's collar size, arm length in inches. Well worth the international shipping fees for a week's worth of shirts. Now I mostly work from home, I think they'll last until I retire lol

We all know that the rich wear personally tailored suits and so-on. But, what I think would be amazing is to be rich enough to wear a personally tailored t-shirt, or personally tailored socks. For women, I can't imagine the joy of having a personally tailored bra that was built precisely to fit their exact body. That must exist at some level of wealth, but I just wonder how rich you have to be to justify that kind of spending.

For most people, even when you find something that fits well, there are going to be compromises, like the shoulders might fit perfectly, but it's just a bit too long, or a bit too tight. But, just imagine something simple like a T-shirt where instead of "medium" you get something that takes into account your torso's length, your ribcage's size, your shoulder's width, your arm's circumference, the size of your neck, and so-on.

Tailors are pretty affordable. Anyone can take clothes into a tailor and get them tailored to their body shape. Idk if bras are able to be adjusted though.
- Sure, tailors are affordable, but can anybody really justify spending $80 for a tailored T-shirt? If you're a multi-millionaire maybe you can, and maybe your T-shirts feel absolutely great as a result.

Forces women to go to store to try on, stay there longer to find a good fit. Ensure makeup, perfumes, bags/accessories, and jewelry are always in eyeshot of the women's clothing racks and along the entry/exit paths.

It's not woman-exclusive and also the companies deciding the sizing are not the same as the companies running department stores (for large clothing brands these days, online shopping in their own store would be optimal, since retailers take a large cut).
It's mainly that making sure sizes are actually the same costs more money than just going with whatever comes out, and it's hard to make purchasing decisions based on size consistency once a large amount of brands do this.
- Well that's just declining quality due to profit motivated practices. Like yeah if you're going to old navy or H&M you're going to be disappointed. A second-hand store is a total guess. Avoiding fast fashion and sticking to a known high quality brand is at least going to give you some consistency for mens wear. I have throughout my life for example been able to order levis' slim-straight in the same size and expect the same fit with only minor but expected variations depending on material (thick/stretch, etc). Haven't bought Levi's in ages though so maybe they're garbage now idk. I don't know of a single woman who's ever had the luxury of a brand that makes clothes they don't have to try on.

As a 160cm guy, s sized shirt for guy is so baggy for me but s sized shirt for woman is just right. And buying s sized made in country A is different size than s sized made in country B.
What is this inconsistent shite

Those differences actually make sense to me. If you try to sell pants with the same length inseam in Honduras and the Netherlands, you’ll either prop up the local tailoring industry or fail. Those at least have an inseam measurement, but a medium shirt is going to have to be made for different proportions as well.
I think men’s and women’s sizes could be adapted to be more focused on body shape and less on gender, but I get where they’re coming from. Women are on average smaller than men, so a women’s medium will similarly be smaller than a men’s medium.
- They could just use measurements. Even with elastic materials just give a range. Remembering a few numbers is not difficult for most people
- Yeah but, shoe industry at least have the consistent going on...sort of.
  As someone from south east asia, my size is like below average even for asian standard, which mean i can't expect to buy cloth and fit if i visit europe or US. Cloth from Uniqlo kinda fit me tho but i guess their shirt might be unisex.

As a guy I feel this for shirts specifically, sometimes I have to wear an XL sometimes it's a L and once in a blue moon I can wear a M. Why you may ask? Because for some fucking reason damned near every shirt assumes medium means 5'7 twink with a shoulder width smaller than my chest width, I'm 5'5 barrel chested and with wide shoulders where sometimes I can't wear a shirt cause I am forced to A pose by the shoulders. Also I can sometimes rip medium sized shirts assunder if I flex my back right.

damned near every shirt assumes medium means 5’7 twink with a shoulder width smaller than my chest width
I'm 6'0" and muscular with broad shoulders and most of my shirts are M. None of this sizing stuff makes any sense.
Same. The more-standardized sizes in men's clothing means I just have to resign myself to the fact that I need to buy size M, size L, or size XL depending on the brand, and that it still will never fit right. This is why the majority of my shirts are short-sleeved, even in winter.
I've recently met several men who got into sewing as a result.
- I am lucky that it is just a sowing thing for me and I don't mind wearing a shirt so long that it's more comparable to a classical kilt.

Aaaah. Nice jeans do you have it in 36?

No we don't stock big or small sizes.

Okay then, buys on the internet, gets jeans that :

Wrong size in height or width
Fits so bad you can't sit down
They mistook your order for a Circus Tent

Yeah this is my life, I'm 38-40 waist depending if I've been looking after myself.
Basically that size doesn't exist on the high street, and it's never in stock online. I literally have to buy summer clothes in winter and vice versa because that's the only time I stand a chance of getting it in my size. I've wanted to buy a new pair of shorts from Levi's all summer and despite checking every week, I've not seen any in stock once.
And that's all before it arrives and then all the shit you mentioned can happen.
- Shamefully I confess my last jeans was expensive Levis, but they do fit and I imagine I can just order the same ones again if needed? Before that GAP was the thing for me but they left the EU 😓.

And then imagine how it feels like to shop for clothes if your body doesn't even conform to the expected average norms.

I god damn hate it. Stuff is either too wide or too short, the sleeves are NEVER long enough, the only available shoes that fit and don't feel like torture are jogging shoes or sneakers, the neck width is never sufficient (unless you buy men's clothes, which will look like a tent because tits weren't part of the equasion)…

Uuugh, I hate shopping for clothes. -.-

You should be super angry about this. First, clothes sizing is based off of a size 4 fit model let’s call her Gwen. Gwen is the designers idea of the perfect woman. She’s usually white, and she has perfect proportions. All the jeans from the brand are sized up from Gwen’s butt. Clothes are made to fit Gwen, not you, and when you go into the shop, things don’t fit, we always blame ourselves and our bodies. Even though the clothes were never intended to fit us they were intended to fit Gwen.
And guess what. When standard sizes were first measured at least in the US, they purposely excluded women of color. So the basis of sizing is completely biased.
The only positive, there are now a bunch of independent sewing pattern companies that have more diverse fits of clothing. Sewing and tailoring and pattern drafting are the best way to stop supporting all the companies that produce fast, racist fashion. If you want to make affordable clothing, look for a creative reuse store for inexpensive fabric to practice on. There’s tons of free information on YouTube to learn sewing.
You might want to look into barefoot shoes. They're designed to have a really thin sole so you're basically walking barefoot. I had trouble finding shoes that fit until I switched. It also just feels good to be actually using my feet "properly". Instead of relying on the shoe to bend in certain ways, it's my foot and the muscles in my foot that are doing the work.

The last time I went shopping for pants it took a fabric tape measure.

Even as a guy, every pair was six to ten inches larger than listed in the waist.

We're getting jackets as a christmas present from my employer and they had us fill out a size form. "Sizes are as usual."

Made me think of this.

Always get a size up and wash them hot to shrink to you

I feel this. Even for jeans, where measurements are given, it can be tricky to get them right. Oftentimes, the cut makes all the difference. In the end, that's the design of the garment and that might fit your body or not. I think designers should have all the freedom in the world making their jeans tighter or looser, higher or lower at the spots they want but a better description would reduce returns for online stores a lot.

Though, I've seen some stores which put serious effort into this, allowing you to enter body measurements and then showing how it might fit you with a sketch or allowing you to compare it with another pair of jeans.

Tbh, online shopping clothes has never been a good idea. I don't know how it became so popular when it is so much extra effort to find clothes that actually fit without gathering a huge collection of pieces that don't.
- Stores rarely have the sizes I need. Shoes and clothes are a pain to find.. but when I find something I buy the same thing online over and over again until I can't get it anywhere anymore. It's easier than going to the stores and realizing they don't have it anymore.
  Over the years I've also gathered a few brands that make clothes I like, I understood their sizing scheme and are not fast fashion. It's easier to search online what I want and then order it to the store.

I feel the same way, especially shoes. I guess the chart, size guide and even measurements is BS. This is why I dont order clothes online, last order I got the shirts are like big night shirts. Ah, well.

I suppose one of the many reasons why there are no consistent clothing sizes is because it's so difficult to agree on a way to measure things. What parts do you measure? The lower leg thickness? the upper leg thickness? the waist circumference? The leg's length? What if these numbers are all independent of each other and can't be reduced to a single number?

We have centimetres, how hard is it to just provide the measurements of a piece of clothing with it?
different cuts exist that already set out at least some standards for this
I don't disagree that it is difficult, but we have the ability to do this. We've done more difficult things
- if companies actually did share 5 numbers with each piece of clothing (notice that that actually wouldn't work since each piece of clothing is a bit different since they're still largely hand-sown and measuring each piece of clothing is unpayably expensive) it would lead to a bureaucracy hell. businesses in europe already complain about too much bureaucracy, because they have to document a lot of things, and this would make the outcry a lot worse.
  on top of that most customers wouldn't actually bother reading a datasheet of 5 numbers and instead just try them on. so it's not even a big advantage.

I refuse to allow anyone else to buy clothes for me

i am simply too impatient to buy tight or normal fitting clothing - i just buy loose M or L everything and eyeball if it should be M or L, bonus points for drawstrings but i do also own belts so anything will do.

besides, finding a well fitting pair of jeans is borderline impossible for me, because: 1. i'm a guy 2. i'm short 3. i have a big ass. those 3 combined seemingly make me a mythical creature, clothes designers don't seem to even be capable of thinking to make jeans that'd fit me well.

jeans that fit my ass and are short enough? guess i don't get to have pockets (because i'd need to buy in the women's section)

guy design and big ass variant? baggy on the rest of my legs & now i need to cut them to walk

guy design & good lenghts for my legs? my ass doesn't fit

:(

I ordered new shoes last week, same size as always of course. They're at least two sizes too large. WTF?

I'm very glad men's pants and shorts are done by waist measurement, and is an actual measurement.

Shirt sizing has been pretty consistent as well, in my experience.

Maybe if you're getting it tailored or something but off the shelf it can be a crapshoot for us, too. I have "32" jeans that range from hanging off me to I can't wear them comfortably.
- This is why a lot of men find one brand and stick to it until they die.
- I've never had a medium shirt that didn't fit me.

Jokes on you I don't know what Letter/Number size I am, I just try some on and buy the one that fits

Thank you

wdym

Nah. I'm over 12. Use words?

We're old. We don't set the trends or standards anymore. If we want to keep participating, we have to adapt to their style. They aren't going to adopt our older standards.
- Low wizzer
Nah. I’m over 12
But under 25, otherwise 'wdym' would be part of your native tongue. At this point the kids are probably saying something more like 'low wizzer' or whatever dark magic is used to make up Zoomer slang.
('wdym' - 'What Do You Mean?')
- Tru biz
Language - wait for it - changes.