Adidas models "women's" pride swimsuit, on a male model. What happened to Unisex?

Here's a crazy idea, adidas, if you want your pride swimsuit to be worn by either sex, why don't you just dust off the old "unisex" category and place the swimsuit under that taxonomy?
We had plenty of unisex fashions in the 70s and again in both fashion and fragrances in the 90s, what is wrong with that category?

Who knows what adidas was thinking, but they have placed an obvious male in the "Pride Swimsuit", which is fine in itself, if a male wants to wear a one piece swimsuit that shows off their chest hair like Sacha "Borat" Baron Cohen and Sean Connery did before him, who am I to stop him? Have at it, bro. Go strut your stuff any way you like to. That's not my issue here at all.

My question is much simpler than that.
Taxonomy.
This "pride swimsuit" is located on the adidas website shop under "women's sportswear" See for yourself. (archive)

Why did we move so incredibly quickly from having supposed "impossible" beauty standards like the 90s supermodels, to adding beautiful women of all heights and shapes, shades and backgrounds, even differently-abled women to just deserting women altogether in the modeling of anything?

We managed a tiny moment of women models with belly hair, for example, but everyone was "icked out". Ever since the 50s, even the biggest sex symbols of the world have shown themselves with unshaven armpits on more than one occasion, and it was an 80s pop starlet and classic punk "provocative" staple, but as recently as in April this year people were still freaking out about actress Rachel McAdams armpit hair. 

But okay, a man with a bulge and a hairy chest is modeling women's bathing suits now. Then it's simply not a women's bathing suit. It's unisex. Say that. You don't suddenly become a woman because your one-piece bathing suit covers your nipples, lads.