> The comment I replied to could easily have avoided any comment by me by not referencing “boyfriends” as such, but instead “Significant Others” or some such mo

> The comment I replied to could easily have avoided any comment by me by not referencing “boyfriends” as such, but instead “Significant Others” or some such more inclusive term. And what if they are a boyfriend? A boyfriend that sees a thing designed for people in their situation? Is it terrible for them to think "I'm glad people thought about boyfriends like me"? > it was casually written, and used the term “boyfriends” as a term for those who come into a store, not to shop themselves, but in the company of someone else who will. Or casually written as a person describing their own experiences as a boyfriend. > I feel that this is casually making unnecessary assumptions, and making some people feel like they are not “normal”, such as women who are not interested in clothes. It seems to me to make no assumptions at all, other than a boyfriend who does not enjoy clothes shopping is one of the groups that the designer considered. > I also think you read too much exactness into the original comment; You're on the verge of realising my core point. You took an incredibly precise meaning from the comment that, quite reasonably, said "boyfriends". It did not say others were not included, but that didn't stop you accusing someone of something I feel (and hope) most of us strongly disagree with. Again, is it unfair for me to say your comment about homosexual erasure ignores homosexual men because you assume "boyfriend" can't refer to a man who doesn't care about clothes shopping with his partner who is also a man? Can't homosexual men also not care about clothes? Why do are you promoting such stereotypes? Is this not an unfair attack from me against you, because I assume you don't think this but your comment wasn't really quite clear enough not to be misinterpreted.