By Luis Miranda
“ Article 1: The single system for identifying clothing sizes is hereby created.”
This is the first provision in the bill seeking to standardize the sizing of clothing we buy. The process of the eventual legislation was initiated through a motion by Representative Gael Yoemans, supported by other honorable representatives such as Maite Orsini, Carmen Hertz, and Erika Olivera. It consists of only three articles, plus four transitional articles that form the framework within which this matter will be regulated.
"A joint regulation, issued by the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality, will contain the clothing size numbers with the exact measurements for the population, differentiated for men and women," states the second paragraph of Article 1 of this text-sparse draft, which leaves the regulatory details to a regulation to be issued by both ministries. The first transitional article of the law then mandates an anthropometric study to determine this single sizing system: "For the preparation of the regulations established in the final paragraph of Article 1 of this law, an anthropometric study may be commissioned. This study may be conducted at the national level, in collaboration with universities and research centers, with a representative sample of the total Chilean population, based on age and sex. This study may be conducted within one year of the approval of this law." That is, a representative study of the bodies of the local population will determine the national size.
It's very common for us to be different sizes in different brands, for a size 42 to fit us perfectly in one store, but for the button to not close in the next. According to the initiative's promoter and supporters, this would give rise to arbitrary, discriminatory, and even detrimental situations to people's mental health, since it promotes the idea of perfect bodies that lead to paths like eating disorders. This is one of the main reasons for proposing this bill. "These issues are often overlooked. (But) it's not a minor issue," Yeomans warned at Cooperativa, who emphasized that "we're talking about body stereotypes. This issue influences mental health, in children, young people, and also adults and older adults."
The bill was introduced on January 24 and is currently in its first constitutional process in the Chamber of Deputies. It is not urgently needed for discussion, so the speed with which it advances in the National Congress will depend on the importance and priority assigned to it by the Economic Commission, which is currently processing it.
Vanity Sizing
In the text preceding the bill, which is presented as its basis, vanity sizing is referred to as a bad practice that this bill seeks to eradicate.
Vanity sizing is a marketing technique, a trick by which ready-to-wear clothing stores label their garments with a smaller size than the actual size. For example: I buy a size M t-shirt, which should actually be classified as an L based on its measurements. The objective of vanity sizing is to create a sense of well-being in the consumer so that they buy more, with the consequent greater economic benefits for the store or brand that labels its products in smaller sizes. Although it is a widespread technique, not all stores resort to it. Generally, the most exclusive brands do not use it, because their approach is precisely the opposite: they filter through sizes and thus maintain the physical stereotype of their customer within certain margins. This explains why in one store we are size X, while in another, size Z is the one we should put in the bag.
As mentioned, vanity sizing produces a comfort effect on consumers, which contradicts the argument made by Representative Yeomans regarding its impact on consumers' mental health. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology shows that brands offering smaller sizes, far from producing psychological consequences, actually increase their consumers' self-esteem. Conversely, brands offering larger sizes reduce their customers' confidence, which also results in lower business results.
A completely rational customer shouldn't be influenced by the size they're buying, but rather their purchasing choice should be determined by how well the garment fits, by appearance rather than metrics.
Final considerations on the bill.
It's certainly plausible that initiatives like these attempt to solve the practical problems faced by consumers who have faced what they consider discrimination. Similarly, the creation of universal sizes will address the challenges of online shopping, which has gained so much ground. In the physical store experience, trying on a garment helps us disabuse ourselves and buy what actually fits. However, in online shopping, even with the help of size charts provided by online platforms, the fit of what we buy online is always a mystery that won't be resolved until the moment of shipment.
However, as the law stands today, it could pose problems for its implementation, especially for medium-sized and small brands in Chile's emerging fashion industry. We believe the following points should be taken into account in the legislative debate and in the eventual drafting of the regulations associated with the law.
-Exclusions from the mandatory nature of the law: For designer brands, the regulations should not be mandatory for several reasons. The first is that these types of brands are small or medium-sized, with a long-established customer base, who generally remain loyal to designer labels. Why throw away years of work on sizing adjustments? Why undermine the existing communication and connection between brand and customer? While the bill gives them one year from the enactment of the regulations to adjust their sizes, it does so based on a reductionist criterion that revolves around sales. If a brand has annual revenues above 25,000 UF, it has six months to do so; those with sales below that figure, one year. A process of this nature could have a significant impact on a designer brand, affecting its production process, its finances, and, most importantly, its relationships with its customers.
-Periodic anthropometric survey: A periodicity must be established for updating anthropometric surveys. Chileans' physiognomy is not the same as it was 20 years ago, and surely in the same period in the future, our bodies will have changed again. If the survey is not updated periodically, we will face vanity sizing, protected by the same legislation that tried to suppress it.
-Gather the opinions of designers' trade associations: Sometimes, laws are made without listening to those who will be affected by the regulations. Costume designers' trade associations in Chile don't have much influence; they aren't diligent enough or involved in the actions of authorities that affect their work. A regulation that falls on the deaf ears of Chilean costume designers can be a fatal blow to an industry that is still in its infancy.
-The deconstruction of the idea of the perfect body : This is achieved not only with a size law; it's also important to regulate some aspects of fashion advertising. What good is it to have a size law that attempts to address—among other things—issues related to mental health, break down archetypes, and eliminate discrimination if fashion advertising remains largely plagued by hegemonic beauty? Comprehensive regulations in this regard are urgently needed.
-Wide range of sizes offered: If the goal is to promote the idea of different body types, regulations should consider requiring a minimum number of sizes offered per design. Otherwise, brands can easily circumvent the non-discriminatory intent of the law by offering only small sizes or one-size-fits-all. Each brand should have at least three sizes for a given design.
-Organic legislation for the local fashion industry: Just as prevalent as the sizing issue is the precariousness of the Chilean fashion industry. It is urgent to legislate for this industry by creating organic regulations that consider all aspects of this sector, whose potential is great despite its precariousness. It is time to highlight and support what is made in Chile, to level the playing field to compete on better terms with retail giants. It is urgent to promote local production, with all the benefits that come with it.