Maybe they should hash tag dictionary. By default it is not a double standard. A double standard is applying the same rule differently. To be a double standard he would have had to ask her height.The hash tag could read “hypocrisy” assuming they are referring to the hypocrisy of a woman judging a man superficially on his height when most women would get upset being judged on their weight. However this conversation doesn’t prove hypocrisy for several reasons. Firstly- he doesn’t know why she asked his height. Maybe she is 6’4” and only dates shorter men? Unlikely but possible. Regardless- the weight of a person is somewhat arbitrary regardless. It fluctuates wildly depending on water retention and all manner of changes in lifestyle/health/diet, and without additional information on height/body composition/etc. it tells you little. If someone says they are 130lbs- what does that tell you? If they are 4’8” vs. 5’11” that’s a totally different look, if they lift weights and run, or...
... if it’s all fat- totally different looks. However if you have seen their pictures you can reasonably judge if they are in the realm of what you consider to be a reasonable body weight/composition. However without seeing a person from a proper angle and near an object of known size for reference you cannot determine their height. So asking a persons height is somewhat reasonable to get an idea since you could also easily size them up were you meeting in person. The information is not private in any way. Weight is less easily determined and doesn’t directly relate to a physical characteristic because of all the variables that effect how weight is distributed and what composes it. Hence regardless of one wants to assume she is being hypocritical, she is at least asking a question she can see a logical relevance in and he must as well seeing he didn’t ask her why- she however does not see the relevance of her weight and logically so given that weight alone doesn’t tell us much.
The point is that height is beyond the control of an individual, yet weight can usually be controlled. He’s calling her out for asking why he was tall (which she presumably did because she only dates taller guys, speaking from empirical and statistical data), which she seems to seem important, yet gets offended when asked how much she weighs, which is something she can control. So, yes; not quite a double-standard, but even more disappointing.
She did not get offended. You and he assumed offense. The entire argument you make is based on assumption and not on this individual or the interaction. Because other people have behaved a way- you and he assume she is the same. Because she asks why her weight is important- a valid question- you assume offense. Now: imagine if she asked for his height, and he said “why is that important,” she may have answered. Then he would know. He does not because he didn’t ask. She did ask- do you see the point? It’s called many things. “Emotional baggage” is one word. “Projecting” is another. It’s when one takes negative interactions and carries those with them into future interactions, and assumes those unrelated past instances apply in the present without imperial evidence. “Triggered” I believe is what the kids say. He was “triggered” because of past negative feelings on the issue, and assumed by what she was saying that she was doing the same- but he never asked or actually found out.
The actual equivalency for this would be him asking her her height, not weight. And I’ve known lots of men who won’t date tall girls. Like what point is this trying to make
"Would you love me if I got fat?"
Yep, just not sexually.