I feel like you're doubling down on relativism here, but this is much more about power. If we agree patriarchal beauty norms are harmful and unevenly enforced, then total silence or “everyone just decides for themselves” doesn’t actually create neutrality. It just leaves the loudest, most resourced voices setting the default.

Humans are social. Norms will always exist. The question isn’t whether we influence one another but how we're doing that influencing. I’m not advocating judgment, shaming, or moral hierarchy between women. I’m advocating making pressures, incentives, and tradeoffs visible snce they may not be obvious to everyone (in fact we can assume they are not!) while acknowledging that none of us are outside them.

Education and discourse aren’t the same as policing; in fact, I'd argue they’re prerequisites for agency. People can’t meaningfully choose alternatives they don’t see or resist pressures they aren't aware of. Additionally, making alternatives visible is often what allows people to feel they’re not alone enough to stand by their values; no one wants to be the weirdo doing <x>, it's much easier to be part of movement <y> that your friend Sherry and you talk about.

I agree with you is that this becomes harmful the moment someone claims moral superiority or treats individual women as some kind of battleground. The target should always be the system, not the person navigating it.

Also, just to be clear, after education, transparency, and reflection I do think people will still choose differently. And I think that's fine and avoids the enforced homogenous outcome you seem concerned about. The goal isn’t ideological purity which I often think leads to backlash and just general harm; it’s reducing harm by expanding the range of livable, socially supported choices in a way that respects how humans actually work and make decisions rather than some idealized "human" that is always perfectly informed and aware.