i have these male-gendered pants that i got for really cheap because they were a factory reject or something.
the reason they were sold as that, is because the pockets were small. The color was fine, there weren’t any holes, or manufacturing defects, it just had pockets like girl jeans.
So to recap, if it has small pockets, it’s ok for girls, but if they’re boy jeans, then it’s a factory flaw and not worth full-price.
But that’s not how they were designed? Like I understand what you’re saying, but they were not manufactured they way they were intended to be, so therefore it is a flaw? If they were girls jeans and had guy pockets then I could probably get them for cheap too because it was a defect in the factory…?
i think the point OP is trying to make is that ridiculously tiny pockets shouldn’t have been designed for womens’ jeans in the first place because they’re not practical and are generally inconvenient. the fact that small pockets on guys’ jeans was defective is a reinforcement of this; guys’ jeans are designed to have large pockets, so womens’ jeans should also be designed to have large pockets.