Women have objectively measurable differences in body measurements from men. This requires that garments for women be constructed differently than garments for

Women have objectively measurable differences in body measurements from men. This requires that garments for women be constructed differently than garments for men, in exactly the same way that a garment for a bear-shaped man must be constructed differently than a similar garment for a scarecrow-shaped man. In principle, the opportunity for unfair discrimination is the same as if the company got a discount for their S, M, L, and XL jackets, but did not get a discount for the XS jackets, and actually had to pay extra for the XXL and XXLT jackets. By offering males their choice of sizes, even if it was just between L or XL, Uber already obviated that argument. If you give garments to all your employees, you really need to have a lot of checkboxes: [_] XS [_] XL [_] 0 [_] 8-10 [_] Other: [_] S [_] XLT [_] 2 [_] 12-14 Chest ____ Neck ____ Torso ____ [_] M [_] XXL [_] 4 [_] 16-18 Waist ____ Sleeve ____ [_] L [_] XXLT [_] 6 [_] 20-22 Hips ____ Cuff ____ There, everyone's covered. There's nothing inherently female about size 8-10, or inherently male about size XL. They are simply different sizes. Statistically, those sizes were standardized to fit the greatest number of potential buyers with the fewest variations in pattern parameters. There is a great set of US Army recruit measurement data out there if you wanted to try to design different size categories (for non-obese individuals, due to the inherent military bias), but I think you would have a difficult time doing so.