Susan's Place Logo

News:

Visit our Discord server  and Wiki

Main Menu

A question about hips...

Started by RyanWasHere, June 16, 2008, 11:52:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RyanWasHere

So, after I get my economy stimulation check at the end of the month (Thanks Bush, printing more money and making it more common doesn't make it worth less at all.) I'll be heading to San Francisco to live with a friend, and starting my therapy and hopefully HRT.

I've been hearing from certain people, that fully female hips will difficult or impossible to manage, due to pelvic growth that I missed out on in puberty. I'm 20 years old. Is this true? Is there a chance I could still get lucky and get it anyways? In a lot of ways, I'd rather have hips than a big bust, so I'm kind of worried about that.
  •  

NicholeW.

There's a chance. I suppose anyone has a chance, especially at your age. But, hrt doesn't change bone-structure unless the bones are still forming. But even youth is no guarantee of a felicitous hrt-result, depending on other factors and, often, how the person sees herself.

N~
  •  

Keira


Male bone structure fuses later in the game (up to mid 20's in some) than female ones (since estrogen in both case is the one leading to the end of bone growth), but 20 is late (96-97% of bone lengthening has been done by then) and it seems unlikely you would get much bone growth out of it (though its not impossible, basically a crapshoot, but don't expect huge changes).
  •  

RyanWasHere

Well, I guess some hope is better than none ^^;;
  •  

lisagurl

QuoteThanks Bush, printing more money and making it more common doesn't make it worth less at all.

It increases the national debt which is supported by selling bonds. Supply and demand is more likely to cause inflation. Still buying the same amount as the the seller demands more money. If everyone cut gas usage by half the market would be flooded and the sellers would compete by lower prices.
  •  

RyanWasHere

Ah, well. When I was playing FFXI, the online economy was such that when oodles and oodles of gil was available it was worth less. You could buy 1 million with 10 dollars in real life, then Square enix began deleting gil selling accounts and vast quantities of money, causing individual gil to go up in value, ala 1 million being worth 30 dollars now. I figured it would work the same way in real life. If your dollar is more common, and therefor easier to get, it's worth less money. Or something.
  •  

lisagurl

The money supply is controlled by the Fed. When you write a check you are printing money.

Posted on: June 16, 2008, 04:25:01 PM
QuoteIf your dollar is more common, and therefor easier to get, it's worth less money.

Ask anyone that works the dollar is not easier to get.
  •  

RyanWasHere

I've been working since I was 16, so it's not like I'm some spoiled kid who has never worked before. As for not easier to get, I don't know about other states, but California's minimum wage is going up every year. Gas prices continue to climb. When I first started working, minimum wage was seven dollars an hour (In California)  It is now eight. So let's say I wanted to earn 48 dollars. When I started working, it would have taken seven hours of work. Seven times Seven is 48. Now, if I want 48 dollars, I can work for six hours. Six times eight is 48. That means one less hour of effort. Assuming it's the same job. Six hours of work is generally easier than seven hours of work.

Anyways. I'm sorry if I irritated you in some way. I'm no economics expert, and probably should have excluded my thoughts on Bushes stimulation idea, as it had nothing to do with the question I was asking. :/
  •  

Keira


Actually direct injection of cash, like Bush did, could be a good way to quickly stimulate the economy if there was not so much structural issues that makes this kind of useless.

Cash going through government (which can issue bonds to get it) has more leverage than a tax cut. 
  •  

RyanWasHere

Well, I learned something today. Thats always a good thing. Thanks!

  •  

Beyond

Quote from: RyanWasHere on June 16, 2008, 11:52:27 AMI've been hearing from certain people, that fully female hips will difficult or impossible to manage, due to pelvic growth that I missed out on in puberty. I'm 20 years old. Is this true? Is there a chance I could still get lucky and get it anyways? In a lot of ways, I'd rather have hips than a big bust, so I'm kind of worried about that.

This thread is something that was missed on that trans myth thread:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,37153.0.html


Any widening of the hips you get will be strictly in soft tissue.  The basic shape of the pelvis is already set by age 11-12.  Studies show even if you started HRT at age 9 the shape of your pelvis would still be negligible.  However, all is not lost.  At your age the soft tissues are still quite receptive, even if the bones are not.

Another key is to noticeable hips is your rib cage.  Started early enough HRT can slow the growth of the upper body.  This, in my opinion, is why the kids who are lucky enough to start at 12-14 get a huge benefit.  The smaller your upper body the wider your hips will look.

Hips in our population is from soft tissue development (fat and muscle) and not from pelvic bone widening.



Beyond RTR (Registered Radiologic Technologist)
  •  

Maddie Secutura

Good, I don't need my hips to get any wider than they are.  And if you think about it, having a larger upper body isn't such a bad thing either.  A larger ribcage may make your hips look smaller but at the same time it will make your waist look smaller as well.  Who doesn't want that hourglass shape?


  •  

RyanWasHere

Ah, thanks a bunch for the insight Beyond! That's good to know.

Also, in the above. 7x7 is 49. My mistake, thank you to lisagurl for pointing that out for me.
  •  

deviousxen

my hips are so damn tiny...


I'm 19. This does not sit well with me...

  •