The Victoria Executive's Secret apologizes for its anti-trans & insensitive commentary.

Another day, another non-excuse of a man.

Victoria's Secret issued a message on behalf of its marketing director, Ed Razek, clarifying the statements that Razek had made in Vogue why the lingerie brand did not choose trans models in its fashion shows.

Razek initially stated that Victoria's Secret does not have and should not cast trans models because they are not compatible with the "fantasy", as he called it, presented by the show. Now, Razek says that the company never launched trans models because they just did not make the cut, not because of their sex. And this Victoria's Secret would be "absolutely cast a transgender model."

If you fall in love with this circular logic and are wondering if this statement really contradicts the idea that trans models are not part of the "fantasy" that Victoria's Secret is trying to present – well, you do not. Are not alone!

Let's break it down.

Ed Razek, a 70-year-old white man, is part of the extravagant vision-palooza parade, the Victoria's Secret fashion show. Featuring models such as Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner in angel wings and Scottish underwear adorned with tartans, Victoria's Secret airs the show of big, skinny and almost naked women on ABC in December. A spectacular holiday!

Razek recently gave an interview to Vogue about the show, the brand and its place in a lingerie market that now includes more inclusive and diverse brands, like Rihanna's Fenty. In the interview, Razek was clear: Victoria's Secret is not a mark for everyone, and should not be. He will continue to promote and respond to a very specific body type of Hadid-esque.

"We sell to whom we sell and we do not sell worldwide," said Razek.

To this end, Victoria's Secret has considered placing more and transgender-sized models in its shows, but has finally decided not to make any. This is because the company must remain true to its brand, to the "fantasy" that it sells – which, to be clear, is a woman "in good physical shape", as described by Razek. And this fantasy does not include plus-size women or transgender (transsexuals, as Razek calls them):

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

It is rare nowadays to see such a bald embrace against an obvious but unpopular truth. Why does Victoria's Secret not use trans or plus size models? Because it's not the fine-cis-tits-out-fantasy fantasy that they sell. Duh!

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

My comment about the inclusion of transgender models in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show has been insensitive. I'm sorry. To be clear, we would absolutely use a transgender model for the show. Transgender models came to the castings … and like many others, they did not succeed … but there was never any question of gender. I admire and respect their journey to embrace who they really are.

Razek basically says that he and his team did not launch trans models because they "did not manage to do it", that is, they were not the ones people were looking for. responsible for casting.

Oh, why are you asking that? Because Razek, who, as he said, is trying to promote the "fantasy" brand, claims not to have done it! The models did not fit Razek's idea of ​​a Victoria's Secret model. Ergo, these are not models of Victoria's Secret. Decoupling this truth from their sex is hypocritical and honest, insane.

Razek's statement was clear and honest. Victoria's Secret "would be absolutely" cast a trans model if she made the cut. But the implicit implication based on the brand and the past actions of the company dictates to him never to succeed, because it is people like Razek who decide what is sexy and what is part of the fantasy. And as Razek said earlier, it does not include transsexual women.

Here's the thing: Let's not allow men's opinions like Razek nor the business goals of corporations to decide what's sexy.

It would be a "statement" – perhaps even a victory – if Victoria's Secret presented a transgender model in her iconic parade. That would mean, yes, you're part of the "fantasy" of what we think is sexy too. And that could mean a lot to a lot of people.

But perhaps this attitude supports the power of Victoria's Secret, while we should really continue to deflate that authority – reducing it at the same rate as its sales are falling rapidly. The acceptance of trans models by Courting Victoria Secret implies that society can, should, and should have the power to decide what is sexy. Why do we always allow them to have this power?

We know what Victoria's Secret represents. people like Razek and the dozens of almost identical bodies they put on their podiums say so very clearly. This track does not become an arbiter of what is sexy.

Who needs the approval of Victoria's Secret when we have Rihanna?