Size Matters: Bigotry's Last Stand?

Tasha Fierce
View profile »

Tasha Fierce is a writer living in the occupied Tongva territory known as Los Angeles. You can follow them on Twitter at @tashajfierce and read more of their work on their website.

Many times I've heard fat cisgendered women, mainly fat white cisgendered women, suggest that fatphobia is the "last acceptable form of bigotry." For women without multiple oppressions, I suppose that statement could be correct. But for those who are living at the intersections of many marginalized identities, nothing could be further from the truth.

I would point those who feel that fatphobia is the last acceptable form of prejudice to the nearest trans woman and suggest they have a chat about their lived experiences. Perhaps a conversation with a disabled woman? And with the current racial climate, any woman of color could help them understand why this myth is harmful. I understand why this idea is appealing to white cis women just coming in to the fat acceptance movement and realizing that fat people are oppressed in this society and it's good to fight that. It puts you at the center of everything, which is of course what nonfat white cis women have done with feminism in the past and sometimes in the present. Yes, fat jokes are rampant and you see little if any positive representations of fat people in the media. But the same can be said for trans people, or black people. Fat people also generally don't need to worry about being beaten or killed for being fat. Humiliated and shamed, yes. Pulled behind a truck or murdered due to "fat panic," not so much. We need to be careful when we compare oppressions. Because many times, they are not comparable.

Now, I don't want to get into the "oppression olympics" as so many people call it, but honestly, we are all on different levels in the kyriarchy. Some people are going to get it worse than others, that's just how it goes. So if you're coming into your own, fighting fat oppression and becoming more politically aware, it behooves you to learn about other people's struggles as well—and avoid co-opting them. It doesn't mean you suffer any less because you recognize that hey, this disabled fat woman occupies a lower rung in the kyriarchy than I do, maybe I should learn about how she lives. It just means that you're recognizing the way oppressions interact in our society, which is a really good thing.

We recognize the ignorance in a white person crying "reverse racism" and claiming that our President hates "white culture." So too should we recognize the ignorance in claiming that fat is the last acceptable form of bigotry. It's true, society sucks when it comes to dealing with size issues and fatphobia. The constant talk of the "obesity epidemic" and fat shaming and blaming fat people for all our health care costs is ignorant and misinformed. We can say all that and still know that if being fat and a cisgendered female is all you have to deal with, well, you can afford to let those further down in the kyriarchy have a chance to improve their lot instead of standing on their backs by using their oppression as a narrative to explain your own.

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

43 Comments Have Been Posted

Word to this. I am heartily

Word to this. I am heartily over people saying that anything is 'the last acceptable form of prejudice' and I primarily hear that statement from people who are privileged on a number of axes. It's nothing short of an insult and it is most certainly not anti-oppression work.

And before someone jumps in in comments to say things like 'but fat jokes are socially acceptable when other kinds of -ist jokes aren't' or 'discrimination against fat people is ok but you can't discriminate against people in other oppressed classes,' I would like to courteously invite you to zip it. I heard a transphobic joke on NPR <em>this very morning</em>. Jokes using disability status, race, class, and other axes of oppression are incredibly widespread and not just openly accepted, but applauded. The same goes for discrimination; antidiscrimination laws don't even bother to cover transgender people, for example, and it's not because we don't need protection.


So glad you're here to let everyone know just who's issues are important, and why some feminist's needs just aren't important. That's awesome. Now where does feminism and trans politics stand in the hierarchy of issues in the world? Shall we throw it open?

Which feminist needs are

Which feminist needs are those? The article I read explored the history of privileging specific lived experiences (within the feminist movement) and how that was hurtful to women on the margins.

<strong>Snarky's Machine, your friendly comment moderator</strong>
<a href="">Did someone say <em>Comments Policy</em>?</a>

"In real life as in Grand Opera, Arias only make hopeless situations worse" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.


@Anonymous, I think you may have missed the point here. What Tasha is saying is that ALL feminists needs are important, and that we shouldn't prioritize some oppressions (e.g., fatphobia) over others (e.g., transphobia). Nowhere in this post does she deem anyone's experiences unimportant—far from it.

<b>Kelsey Wallace, Web Editor</b>

<i>Ask me about our <a href="">Comments Policy</a>!</i>


Yeah, I think there's some distance between the statements in this article, which to me boil down to "Hey, it stinks that people think it's ok to talk crap about fat people. but really, they're not the only people left who are in this situation of being openly discriminated against, and claiming they are does a disservice" than saying "WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU IS NOT IMPORTANT I AM TELLING YOU HOW TO THINK AND WHAT TO FIGHT FOR."

plus, doling out hate is way more uncool when it comes from "anonymous". put a name to yourself and own your statements.

I've noticed the term 'cis'

I've noticed the term 'cis' being used an awful lot recently and wondered why it has caught on so much?
As someone who could be marked as 'cis' gendered, I am not all that fond of the term or the attached associations. My body isn't capable of androgyny whatsoever, and yet I don't necessarily believe I enact typical 'womanly' characteristics. I know to many different people, cis is used in different ways but how might this compartmentalize someone and make them feel uncomfortable in a discussion?
I was engaged by your article and can empathize with the frustrations of people not seeing their singular identity politics as problematic but I was inevitably turned off and bothered by the use of 'cis' in the opening sentence.

Discomfort with "cis" might

Comfort with "cis" might prove challenging, but perhaps you might wish to set aside your own discomfort at the label for the purposes of this discussion so that folks who identity as Transgendered/Genderqueer/ETC don't feel crappy once again due to a display of some unchecked cis-privilege.

<strong>Snarky's Machine, your friendly comment moderator</strong>
<a href="">Did someone say <em>Comments Policy</em>?</a>

"In real life as in Grand Opera, Arias only make hopeless situations wors

my point was exactly

my point was exactly this...because I look a certain way I am pegged as 'cis' when in my reality I may not be just that. If someone is queer, can they still be identified as 'cis?'

I am not trying to avoid the topic at hand of problematic single indentity politics, I am just merely asking what exactly the point of using the term 'cisgenger' is? How is it beneficial in a discussion like this?

monty, here are some good

monty, here are some good resources to check out regarding the term "cis", which i strongly suggest checking out:

<i>and just a quick note: "queer" and "cis" are not the same thing, and/or do not cancel one another out. One is a sexual orientation and one is a gender identity. Queers can be trans, cis, genderqueer, non gendered, etc. And cisgender or cissexual folks can be queer, bi, straight, asexual, etc.</i>

To add to this...

RMJ, who is currently doing the TelevIsms blog right here on Bitch, just <a href=" a post about her use of 'cis'</a>, which I thought was rather good, and is clearly pertinent to this (derail-y) conversation.

To comment on the topic of the post itself, thank you for saying this, Tasha. I really hate "x is the last [or even just "x is the <strong>worst</strong>"] oppression!" arguments, and it's a line of commentary I see happening distressingly often. Different oppressions are different. Not worse, not better, but different.

thanks for this link :)

thanks for this link :)

cis-gendered = not trans

cis-gendered = not trans identified. Tasha is not assigning a gender identity to anyone specifically, she is using terminology that is respectful of those of marginalized gender identities. How you identify is completely up to you.

That said, in this space cis is the preferred term to denote not identifying as trans and ask that you please respect that.

<strong>Snarky's Machine, your friendly comment moderator</strong>
<a href="">Did someone say <em>Comments Policy</em>?</a>

"In real life as in Grand Opera, Arias only make hopeless situations worse." - Vonnegut



Thanks for your comments. However, I feel compelled to defend Snarky for defending us (that's a lot of defense!). She is a trusted comment moderator here, and we appreciate her jumping into the fray when it comes to threads like this one.
<b>Kelsey Wallace, web editor</b>

<i>Ask me about our <a href="">Comments Policy</a>!</i>

monty, if you aren't

monty, if you aren't cisgendered, then tell people you don't identify as cisgendered. It's that simple.

sure, but who constantly

sure, but who constantly wants to be deemed as something they are not and then have to keep telling them 'i am not that.'

isn't that the problem with a lot of the things discussed on bitch?

it's like straight allies who (albeit at times well intentioned) want to know how they should address a trans person. as if asking their name is so difficult? the obligation to consistently tell someone what you are or aren't to make them comfortable with their assumptions is a bit obnoxious.

but thanks for the comment.

Did you check out the

Did you check out the resources above? Sometimes it's necessary to step back from a conversation and check out some other takes on it before continuing. No one is forcing an identity on you or anyone else. There is good reason to use the term "cis" or "non-trans" or whatever other combination gets the point across in a conversation, and then the nuances can be picked over if desired (though this isn't the place to do that, i don't think).

Also? You still seem to be conflating gender identity with sexual orientation [i.e. <i>"it's like straight allies who (albeit at times well intentioned) want to know how they should address a trans person."</i>] It's actually not like that at all.

"sure, but who constantly

"sure, but who constantly wants to be deemed as something they are not and then have to keep telling them 'i am not that.'"

I know *exactly* how you feel. I "look multiracial". Whatever that means, their words, not mine. I've been asked more times than I can remember if I am Spanish, Mexican, Latina, half-black, half-<insert ethnicity other than white here>. Spanish-speakers approach me speaking Spanish and when I reply I don't speak it, they look shocked and say "But you look so Mexican!" And I'm white. My parents are, their parents are, and I identify that way, yet to some people, I am in denial about my ethnic heritage and am doing a disservice to people of color and mixed identity everywhere by only identifying as white, because to them, I'm not.

So constantly having to clarify to others how you identify (and when they insist otherwise) is very annoying.

Of course a queer person can

Of course a queer person can be cis--I am, for example. Gender identity and sexual orientation are wholly different things.

As far as why the term is needed...let's assume there wasn't one. Then there would be two categories: trans people and "___ people". See why that's problematic? If there's not a word for cis identities, we can't interrogate them or pick them apart, at least without engaging in some pretty hideous linguistic contortions.

It's like if there wasn't a word for "heterosexual". Cis serves to call attention to a cisgender identity*, and therefore ensure that it isn't allowed to fade into the background and become normalised, or a default assumption.

It would certainly be problematic if people were pegging you as cis when you, in fact, were trans (and this is definitely a thing that happens! Particularly with nonbinary people). That's awful, because it can easily turn into a way of delegitimising your lived experience. But that's...not what it seems like you're talking about.


*let me be clear: to call attention to a cis identity <em>specifically as such</em>. I'm not talking about, like, centreing cis identities and experiences over trans ones. Because that's really gross, and again, something that happens <strong>all the time</strong>

Using 'cisgender' is

Using 'cisgender' is extremely beneficial. Without the counterpart to 'trans' that 'cis' offers, we're left with the construction of 'trans' and 'normal', which Others trans people and other variously-gendered folks.

And yeah, queer people can still be cis. I think it's also useful (oh god, more vocabulary, everyone hide!) to point out that not only is the word 'cisgender' used, but that there's also 'cissexual'. So, f'rinstance, is a female-identified androgynous/butch dyke cis? She's probably not cisgendered, if you go by the umbrella definition of 'transgendered', including gender expression and all, but she's going to still be <i>cissexual</i>.


thank you for pointing that out steph, i think it's reallllly important to differentiate the words "sex" and "gender" in all contexts. cisgender and cissexual have two different meanings, the way transgender and transsexual do.

"Cis" is short for

"Cis" is short for "cisgendered." It is the opposite of "trans." I'm not sure when it first started being used, but I believe the original intent behind using it was to stop using "normal" as the opposite of "transgender." It's not intended to compartmentalize anyone or make them feel any less comfortable, much as the words "black," "LGBT," or, yes, "transgender," among others, are. Those of us who recognize that there are vast differences among the transgender community also realize that there are such differences among the cisgender community, and therefore identifying someone as "cis" is not intended to be a generalization, either.

Coming off as bigoted

I don't think you know what cis means, and as such, your comments are coming off as extremely bigoted. Cis is the latin antonym to trans. Cisgendered means not transgendered. What do you mean by "as someone who could be marked as 'cis' gendered"? Are you trans or aren't you? If not, you're cis. That's just how it works, by definition.

What associations do you have to the term cis? Besides not-transgendered it means nothing else.

When you say your body isn't capable of androgyny, you are being deliberately misleading. Trans people do not seek androgyny, not all of them anyway. Cis/Trans has nothing to do with androgyny. Androgyny is related to gender expression. Besides all that, depending on if you're female bodied or male bodied, testosterone or estrogen HRT could certainly help you become more androgynous than you are now. Make no mistake, you are very likely capable of androgyny. As to if you want to pursue an androgynous gender expression, that is another matter.

If you know many different people that are using cis in many different ways, correct them when their usage is incorrect. Cis means not trans, nothing else. What other word would you suggest to replace cis? Normal? I hope you can see how marginalizing and bigoted that suggestion would be.

and yes, as to the post, i'm

and yes, as to the post, i'm also tired of hearing this refrain about ______ being the last acceptable ism. How convenient! What a great way to never have to look at the rest of our shit or to have conversations about racism, ableism, transphobia, queerphobia, anti-semitism, classism, etc, because, well, i'm fat, and everything else is unacceptable to be an ass about, so therefore i've ultimately got it worse than anyone, so yeah let's not talk about any of that inconvenient other stuff.

Thanks y'all

Thanks y'all for holding it down for me regarding the cisgendered thing. Not to be "whatever" about it, but yeah, what they all said about it being the preferred nomenclature.

I agree

I agree that it speaking of any one thing as the last acceptable oppression is a problem. I agree that oppressions are not necessarily comparable.
But I must take issue with the comment that "Fat people also generally don't need to worry about being beaten or killed for being fat." I can think of at least one example where a woman was beaten for being fat ( and I can think of several occasions in my own life where I have been harmed in ways that go beyond humiliation and shame because of the size of my body. When I read that statement, I felt like you were comparing the severity of oppression and doing so on the premise that fat women do not face the threat of physical violence because of their size. It seems like the last thing that you would want to do is dismiss or diminish the severity of the harm cause by bigotry.
Just my two cents.

vocabulary and blank generalizations

Well, Tasha wrote, "Fat people also generally don't need to worry about being beaten or killed for being fat," which doesn't preclude the possibility of someone actually being beaten or killed because of their size, as you have helpfully pointed out. The word "generally" is very useful in that sentence because it means something <em>isn't</em> 100%.

What I took from that

What I took from that passage was an acknowledgement of how issues in the lives of Trans Women are often dismissed. Violence and physical harm are very real possibilities in lives of <em>all</em> women, however, the way in which threats of physical harm and violence effect the lives of Trans Women are <em>rarely</em> discussed outside supportive communities. Nobody's disputing the violence faced by all women, however, as this is a post asking those higher on the kyriarchy to unpack privilege, it's just not an appropriate venue for cries of, "it happens to me too!" when discussing the concerns of women whose voices and experiences are routinely erased both in and outside feminist communities.
<strong>Snarky's Machine, your friendly comment moderator</strong>
<a href="">Did someone say <em>Comments Policy</em>?</a>

"In real life as in Grand Opera, Arias only make hopeless situations worse." - Vonnegut

See "generally"

Believe me, I know about violence, verbal and physical, directed at fat people. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Therefore, "generally".

The sentence that promted my response:

"Yes, fat jokes are rampant and you see little if any positive representations of fat people in the media."

I was referring to my understanding that this assessment of what fatphobia amounts to is inaccurate. Further, I think it a dangerous popular understanding that discourages seeing fatphobia in an intersectional way. If fat-hate is only manifested in media or through jokes then fat people with privilege can use that very privilege to avoid (or work to avoid) situations that make them uncomfortable because their privilege gives them that option. If, however, we recognize that fat-hate infuses more/other institutional spaces it becomes necessary to broaden our understanding of how fatness interacts with poverty, education, reproductive rights, etc. Such a broadening would entail an awareness of how fatness intersects with class, race, sex, ability, age in institutional space and so too that fatness is by no means last acceptable form of bigotry. (If, after all, a bigotry is institutionalized it is made perpetually acceptable.)

I think the key word here is

I think the key word here is "acceptable." i can definitely see how some might see it that way, considering how progressive some parts of America are in terms of racism, sexism, and homophobia, etc. But that doesn't mean that it's become unacceptable everywhere, even though it may be in certain places.

Sometimes, I also think that some people only see the bigotry directed at them. Some people don't know what racism looks like, what homophobia looks like, what transphobia looks like, or what sexism looks like, but if they've experienced fatphobia, they KNOW what that looks like because they've experienced it. I think that people make that statement in ignorance because they simply don't know any other form of discrimination and bigotry. But that doesn't excuse it. It's up to them to educate themselves about all forms of oppression.

Violence towards size

I have had people suggest I should be beaten or even killed for being fat, forced into surgery I don't want, and that I am not alienated enough. I can't say any of these things have happened to me, but I have feared it. I have been beaten with a 2x4 for being a witch, run-over by a car for being gay just as a start.

What is wrong about saying that the threats and ostracism against cisism are not the same is that it ignores the fact that these things work in a continuum and threats today are only psychological violence today (wait ... isn't that bad enough? Doesn't this type of violence often lead us to physical violence against ourselves? Bulimia, cutting, diet pill addiction for starters?) and become physical violence tomorrow?

life is hard

Have you ever though about how hard it must be to moderate this website?

everybody has a problem with something...

Very true, hctib

Especially when folks don't bother reading <a href="">The Comment Policy</a>!

The section on checking privilege is particularly helpful as well as the resources listed regarding "Derailing for Dummies".
<strong>Snarky's Machine, your friendly comment moderator</strong>
<a href="">Did someone say <em>Comments Policy</em>?</a>

"In real life as in Grand Opera, Arias only make hopeless situations worse." - Vonnegut

Derailing for Dummies is one

Derailing for Dummies is one of the dumbest things I've ever read, and -- unless you're maybe posting a metacomment re: warped unintelligent groupthink -- you lay your own credibility to waste whenever you link it.

Wow, it's called "Having a

Wow, it's called "Having a Sense of Humor!"!

Lighten up!

self-expression in the safety of anonymity - except for my IP.

I am a fat, cisgendered white woman, so I have privilege and I know it, at least as well as it's possible for me to know it. I hope that what I say here isn't offensive, but I am sorry if it is; that's not my intention; I am trying very hard to check my privilege but we all fail especially in ignorance. Please do not hesitate to point out any ignorance on my part; I can't fix it if I'm not aware of it.

I work with a group of four other ladies, and I am the only white woman in the group. We do sometimes talk about issues of prejudice (racism mostly, sexism sometimes), and mostly I listen. I listen because I realise that being the only white woman in this group does not mean I am suddenly unprivileged - I'm still very, very privileged. But because of my white privilege, this is also the first time ever in my whole life of 26 years, I have been the only caucasian non-Hispanic in my place of business. I don't even know if it's okay to admit that I'm aware of the fact that my coworkers are not caucasian or that they are Hispanic, even here, where it's safe because this is anonymous. I don't have the experience or the charm, or the courage, to do anything but listen to my coworkers.

The point - I suspect you're wondering what the point is! :) - The point is that as a fat, cisgendered white woman, I don't know if I am playing oppression olympics by relating, as I am sometimes drawn to, the prejudice I have experienced as a fat person and/or as a woman, during conversations of racism. I work with these women. I value their opinions of me. I worry that if I did relate instances of prejudice, that I would be seen as trying to say that my experience somehow is worse or that it deserves more attention - it doesn't, and I know that. For me - and I can only speak for myself - when I want to do this, it isn't because I feel that my experiences are more important or somehow more intensely prejudicial than the incidences of racism my coworkers experience. It's because I enjoy the company of these women, who are all intelligent and outspoken, because I enjoy hard-hitting discussion of serious issues especially with people who have views and experiences so wildly different from my own as these ladies happen to have, and because I have no prejudicial experiences to discuss except those relating to my gender and my weight. For me, it isn't a case of one-up-manship or an attempt to claim I have no privilege; it's a case of desiring to be a part of the group in even a very small way.

I don't know if that's okay or not. I'm not asking any of you if it's okay; you're not my coworkers, and in this instance it only matters how my coworkers would see it. And I don't have any idea how they would see it. I only know what I mean, when I want to talk about my limited experiences with prejudice.

I guess what I am posting for, since the permission to be obtained isn't for you all to give, is just to express it, in a place where anonymity grants me safety even as I admit to ignorance and privilege. So thanks for being a place I can express my fears and worries about this. And again, I am truly sorry if anyone finds it offensive.

Oppression Olympics

Although the article states a desire to avoid the so-called "Oppression Olympics," to me it seems to dive right into them. It is these few sentences, mostly:

<i>Fat people also generally don't need to worry about being beaten or killed for being fat. Humiliated and shamed, yes. Pulled behind a truck or murdered due to "fat panic," not so much. We need to be careful when we compare oppressions. Because many times, they are not comparable.</i>

To me, the above essentially reads as "You should not compare fat-phobia to racism or transphobia, not because of an inherent problematic-ness with contrasting different types of bigotry, but because fat-phobia cannot hold a candle to the seriousness of these other problems." I'm not trying to cause a problem; I just honestly want this clarified. I thought the whole point was not to pit different oppressed groups against one another, but to understand that everyone is coming from a different place and to respect their experiences and opinions. The post just seemed a bit divisive to me.

I agree with this. I agree

I agree with this.

I agree with this post, for the most part: for example, I as a fat, white, cisgendered, still-having-trouble-with-identifying-as-disabled (not because I think there's anything wrong with that but because I don't think my physical and mental issues are "severe" enough, even though they severely impact my life) woman, think it's ludicrous to say fatphobia is the last acceptable bigotry.

That said, I don't think the point needed to be made by saying how dangerous fatness isn't.

Mental health is another area where stigma is still the norm

As an overweight woman with a psychiatric disability, and a physical disabiling illness, and being aware that there are people who face more discrimination than I do every day, I want to thank you for this post. I do think that hatred of fat is a major problem in our society. But try telling someone you have Schizophrenia and watch how fast they run in the opposite direction, whereas, when you were just a fat woman who was not obviously psychotic, they stood right next to you.

I don't think anyone is

I don't think anyone is arguing that fat discrimination is the last REMAINING form of oppression, period, or even that it's the most salient or harmful -- rather, I think the most frequent claim is that fat discrimination is the most ACCEPTABLE oppression, in civilized circles. And I actually agree with this, at least as it pertains to fat women (fat men pretty much get a pass).

I'm white and cis and upper middle class, but I do experience some other forms of oppression: I have a disability, and I'm queer. These are two things I can conceal when desired, so I've sort of been able to gauge the disparity in how I'm treated when these traits are recognized versus when I choose to "pass." I can make a similar comparison with regard to fatness because, although I'm presently thin, I used to be morbidly obese. Like most people who have successfully lost a great deal of weight, I would sincerely rather have a limb amputated, reduce my life expectancy by ten years, forfeit my entire net worth, swim through a vat of raw sewage...ANYTHING..rather than be fat again. It is the most horrible thing I have ever experienced.

I sympathize immensely with, for example, trans women. But...ok, so, I work in banking in nyc. Respectable, professional setting. It is COMPLETELY ROUTINE for people here to remark, as my supervisor did today over lunch, that "those obese people" are "fucking revolting" and will "hopefully die off" rather than stick around and raise healthcare costs. I have never, ever heard anyone say anything remotely similar about trans women, about POC, about people with disabilities, etc. in such purportedly civilized company. It's unimaginable. These coworkers are people who snark at the closeminded hysteria over the "ground zero mosque", who posted earnest Facebook exhortations to oppose Prop 8, who poured ecstatically into the streets when Obama won. But most of them wouldn't even conceptualize fat discrimination as a social problem, period.

tldr, the trite and oft-refuted "last acceptable form of oppression" line has a lot of truth to it. you just need to focus, heavily, on the "acceptable" part.

No, fat men do not "pretty

No, fat men do not "pretty much get a pass". I really wish people would stop saying this kind of thing. It is simply not the case, certainly not enough the case to make this kind of claim.

Please also consider what you are saying when you claim things like you would "rather have a limb amputated" than be fat again. This is supremely problematic. On so many levels.

And the idea that the difference is the "acceptable" part is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. In case anyone has failed to glean this already: IT IS STILL ACCEPTABLE TO HURL RACIST, ABLEIST, QUEERPHOBIC and TRANSPHOBIC SLURS (for emphasis). Whether we're talking so-called "civilized" company or not (and what exactly are you getting at here?), these things are very much still acceptable. I regularly experience three of those, and I can tell you, everyone else in the vicinity seems to be just fine with it, as they do nothing to interfere. Because it may not be routine where <i>you</i> live, or you may not be aware of it, or notice it, doesn't make it not so.

Pyz Beautiful bag 2010 new style

KfmBsg <a href=>クロエ 財布</a> Ygbqg PohPxp <a href=>クロエ 財布</a> Xbfxt TlcLcr <a href=>クロエ アウトレット</a> Owpns OomVfj Uqgzd UxdWko <a href=>クロエ 財布</a> Tbqwj UmgDbz <a href=>クロエ バッグ</a> Ldlux OytNdm <a href=>クロエ 財布</a> Ftpxc IahJin Vxtmi KjoWpa <a href=>クロエ バッグ</a> Sayne DkyCil <a href=>クロエ</a> Cptfr WdkCrd <a href=>クロエ 長財布</a> Flzjo PhkIes Iptzm BujFiw <a href=>クロエ</a> Jsjap IkpQba <a href=>クロエ アウトレット</a> Crigo VwuExh <a href=>クロエ</a> Cqkpx QqaLyb Rxdsq EqoVft <a href=>クロエ バッグ</a> Nyqkc GzlAvg <a href=>chloe アウトレット</a> Wwoyo ZddWmc <a href=>クロエ バッグ</a> Nflxx FtvCtj Iteqn

Add new comment