Victoria's Secret exec apologizes for 'insensitive' anti-trans how

Another day, another non-apology from a man.

Victoria's Secret issued a message on behalf of its Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Ed Razek, clarifying statements that Razek made in Vogue about why the lingerie brand has not cast its models in its tentpole fashion shows.

Razek originally stated that Victoria's Secret has not should not they are not consistent with the "fantasy," he called it, presented by the show. Now, Razek says that the company has never seen them because they simply do not make the cut, not because of their gender. And that Victoria's Secret would "absolutely cast a transgender model."

If you're scratching your head at this circular logic, and wondering whether this statement really does not make you think that Victoria's Secret tries to present – well folks, you're not alone!

Let's break it down.

70-year-old white male Ed Razek is one of the people who casts the extravagant objectification-palooza that is the Victoria's Secret fashion show. Featuring models like Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner in the wings and Scottish tartan-adorned underwear, Victoria's Secret broadcasts the show of tall, thin, near-naked women on ABC in December. A holiday spectacular!

Razek recently gave an interview to Vogue Rihanna's Fenty, Rihanna's Fenty, Rihanna's Fenty, Rihanna's Fenty. In the interview, Razek was clear: Victoria's Secret is not a brand for everybody, nor should it be. It will continue to promote a very specific Hadid-esque body type.

"We market to who we sell to, and we do not market to the whole world," Razek said.

To that end, Victoria's Secret has been considered to be more important than that, but it has been decided against it. That's because the company needs to stay true to its brand, to the "fantasy" it's selling – which, to be clear, is "physically fit" women, as Razek described them. And that fantasy does not include plus-size or transgender (female transsexual, as Razek calls them) women:

Should you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I do not think we should. Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy. It's a 42-minute special entertainment. That's what it is.

It's rare to see such a bald-faced embrace of an obvious-if-unpopular truth. Why does not Victoria's Secret be cast or more-size models? Because it's not the thin-cis-tits-out-fantasy that they're selling. Duh!

So, of course, Razek and Victoria's Secret. And to do so, the company issued a … very confusing statement!

My comment regarding the inclusion of transgender models in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show came across as insensitive. I apologize. To be clear, we would definitely have a transgender model for the show. We've had transgender models, but they have not made it … But it was never about gender. I admire and respect their journey to embrace who they really are.

Razek largely says that he and his crew did not make it because they did not make it.

Oh, why is that you ask? Because Razek, who is, said he, trying to promote the "fantasy" of the brand, says they did not make it! The models did not fit Razek's idea of ​​a Victoria's Secret model. Ergo, they are not Victoria's Secret models. Decoupling that truth from their gender is disingenuous and honestly, nonsensical.

Razek's statement was clear and honest. Victoria's Secret "absolutely would" if she made the cut. But, the unspoken implication based on the company's actions dictates that she would never make the cut, because it's people like Razek deciding what is sexy, what is part of the fantasy. And as Razek stated previously, that does not include trans women.

Here's the thing: let's not allow the opinions of men like Razek nor the business objectives of corporations decides what is sexy.

It would be a "statement" – perhaps even a victory – if Victoria's Secret cast a transgender model in its iconic runway show. It would say, yes, you are part of the "fantasy" of what we think is sexy, too. And that could mean a lot of people.

But perhaps that attitude is the power of Victoria's Secret, when we should be doing so much more in the process of being successful. Courting Victoria Secret's acceptance of the assumption that the company can, does, and should have the power to decide what is sexy. Why do we still allow them to have this power?

Victoria's Secret stands for; People like Razek, and the dozens of near-identical bodies they put on their runways, make that very clear. That runway no longer gets to be an arbiter of what is sexy.

Who the hell needs Victoria's Secret's approval when we've got Rihanna?