So Oakley makes a line of sunglasses that they bill as “Asian fit”, that they’re designed for the parameters of the Asian face. This article concludes that Oakley’s “Asian fit” sunglasses aren’t racist, just science, but the data given don’t really support that claim.
The obvious problems are that 1) “Asian” doesn’t describe any kind of morphological uniformity, and 2) it’s not clear that the range of variation in facial structure is sufficiently distinct. Sure, the human brain is really good at discriminating racial groups, and there are obviously general differences, but Indian/Korean/Chinese/Japanese/Thai/etc. have subtle differences in their features, too, so why are they all being lumped together? And further, the parameters that vary and that might affect the fit of a pair of glasses seem to show a lot of overlap with other groups. For instance, the article shows one morphological parameter, nasal height, and how it varies in different racial groups.
Whoa, look at the range in each of those groups: you would think that there might be some people of European ancestry who could use “Asian fit” glasses (with the caveat that this is one parameter, and there could be consistent patterns of covariation with others that reduce overlap).
As the article goes on to say, other companies than Oakley don’t make the Asian distinction at all, just producing a range of glasses that just fit. That seems like the wiser choice.