Can you do/take a picture showing us were you measured as results will vary if we do not all do exactly the same measurement.

I know if I measure around my ribcage under my nipples with a steel tape I would be 38.8 inches all the way around with my fat/muscle included.

Eg are you going from the sides of your ribcage, how far down are your cage are you going, are you pulling it tight to measure only bone etc. I think being concise will help, sorry If I sound bossy lol ... I just have a very scientific mind and need to understand the variables >.<

Quote from: beren_ts on February 19, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
That was a pic of candice swanepoel. I photoshopped it to show you my proportions.

All I can say is, well done! Most women would kill for those proportions. Seriously, it looks all good.

Sarah leah: Thats what im trying to say the width is more important than the circumference.
Because not everyone has the same amount of muscles and fat there. So it makes no sense to measure it around.
Here an example:


Only from the front! A ruler would be perfect.

Nicolette: Thanks honey

I know what you meant, I've just never seen people discuss measurements "across" before (it's usually circumference) so I didn't have those numbers to hand. Still, it looks like you're well in proportion... 

I went and re-measured, and even got my wife to cooperate. I am 16" shoulders, 14" directly across rib cage right below the breasts, waist 15", hips 20".

My wife is 22" shoulders, 13" across rib cage, waist 18", hips 24".

Oh, and she's 5'5", I'm 5'7". Basically, that's one datapoint suggesting you're smaller than at least one person who went through a natural female puberty.

mine is not a perfect measurement as I lack a ruler, but I got four numbers to compare with a steel tape:

I am 5'11 height (180cm),  213lbs (97kg) and 17.5 to 18 inches shoulders

first:     34cm (13.3 inches)
second: 33.5cm (13.1 inches)
Third:    33cm (12.9 inches)
fourth:   32cm (12.5 inches)

Average: 12.9 inches

I have relatively a big body figure compared with ordinary women here. But, my ribcage width is extremely small compared with other biological men here, and it had been a stigma and a target of bullying at my teens. I do not know the cause, but my younger brother has a far wider rib cage. Sex hormones can play a role, but also genetics and growth in the womb seem to be important.

My small ribcage now becomes a merit, as I can wear very tight formal tops for ladies at their 20s, despite my 184 cm (6 feet) height. Those tops are for very slim women with height of < 170 cm (5'7"). Most women here can not wear them after their 30s.





A shame can become a merit. Probably that is a reason for my crossdressing.

barbie~~

http://humanics-es.com/FireFighterAnthropometry.pdf

"1.5 Differences between the sexes" is interesting. Watch it, it's all too easy to get obsessed with measurements. 

I just did a bit of info hunting and found out I could wear be wearing  a (us sizes) 44 bandwidth for bras in my current body size (Pre HRT) if I have the same cup size as the women in my family 42DD US size. That sounds big right?   

Also will HRT reduce that band size (the 44 part) or will it stay the same as my sister who is about a 42DD the other is a 38DD!! I am praying that I might loose some muscle and drop a band size or two. Is that likely as I am seeing that most females are around a 36-38???

I used this site to get the info
http://www.85b.org/bra_calc.php

Beren is that you in your display picture?! 

Quote from: missy1992 on February 19, 2014, 11:59:18 PM
Beren is that you in your display picture?! 

That's a photoshopped picture of candice swanepoal with my proportions
Once i'm full time i can post pics in a bikini
But i still want to know your you all's measurements:

Shoulder width
Ribcage width
maybe waist and hip width everything across, pleasse

Quote from: Sarah leah on February 19, 2014, 06:11:33 PM
mine is not a perfect measurement as I lack a ruler, but I got four numbers to compare with a steel tape:

I am 5'11 height (180cm),  213lbs (97kg) and 17.5 to 18 inches shoulders

first:     34cm (13.3 inches)
second: 33.5cm (13.1 inches)
Third:    33cm (12.9 inches)
fourth:   32cm (12.5 inches)

Average: 12.9 inches

Hmm so what do you mean with average?

Quote from: Sarah leah on February 19, 2014, 10:31:19 PM
I just did a bit of info hunting and found out I could wear be wearing  a (us sizes) 44 bandwidth for bras in my current body size (Pre HRT) if I have the same cup size as the women in my family 42DD US size. That sounds big right?   

Also will HRT reduce that band size (the 44 part) or will it stay the same as my sister who is about a 42DD the other is a 38DD!! I am praying that I might loose some muscle and drop a band size or two. Is that likely as I am seeing that most females are around a 36-38???

I used this site to get the info
http://www.85b.org/bra_calc.php

Depending how much fat and muscles there are it will shrink some. Don't forget the visceral fat between you organs! That will shrink to! I think with an width of 12.9 inches of your ribcage it can shrink even to a 38 band size.

The average of all the measurement I did on the same area. It just seems smarter to do a few of the same area rather than doing one as errors can happen. I did it again a while back and it is 12.9 average still. I think that is expected given I am tall (almost 6 foot) and bit over weight so a cm or two is fat and muscle bulking it out. I guess once I get on HRT a lot of the deep muscle etc with reduce and it will drop in width.

I added the four measurements I took then divided it by four to get the average.

I hope so too

Quote from: Nicolette on February 19, 2014, 02:25:15 PM
If you've been on early hormone treatment then the genetics expressed in regards to skeletal frame will be 99.9% female, not male. Being born XX will have made little difference to your frame. Testosterone is responsible for the typical male skeleton. Maybe compare yourself to other females in your family?

No, she's right, genetics play a bigger role than hormones.

Take a close look at AIS women, totally insensitive to testosterone, yet quite a few of them look (very) masculine; a sloping forehead, square jaw and chin, big ribcage, wide shoulders.
Same goes for quite a few eunuchs in India, when castrated at young age and the same goes for the 'castrato singers' in the 19th century.

It is a matter of genetics.


Beren have you been on estrogen at 12? Or puberty inhibiting hormones?

Quote from: beren_ts on February 20, 2014, 03:47:17 AM
That's a photoshopped picture of candice swanepoal with my proportions
Once i'm full time i can post pics in a bikini
But i still want to know your you all's measurements:

Shoulder width
Ribcage width
maybe waist and hip width everything across, pleasse

Well, I guess photoshopped "you" is quite curvy!

As for measurements, I am not sure what how you all are measuring so ill just give you the circumference :

Waist 28 inches
hips: 38 inches
ribcage (directly under bust) 31.5 inches (I wear a 36 band bra)

shoulder... not sure how you measured however looking head on in front of me, my shoulders are slightly wider over all than my hips. Not perceptable so much at first because we are literally talking about a half inch (aprox quarter inch on each side)

FWIW I started HRT at 19 (going on 20!) and am now 22

Quote from: Dahlia on February 20, 2014, 02:56:35 PM
No, she's right, genetics play a bigger role than hormones.

Take a close look at AIS women, totally insensitive to testosterone, yet quite a few of them look (very) masculine; a sloping forehead, square jaw and chin, big ribcage, wide shoulders.
Same goes for quite a few eunuchs in India, when castrated at young age and the same goes for the 'castrato singers' in the 19th century.

It is a matter of genetics.


Beren have you been on estrogen at 12? Or puberty inhibiting hormones?

Some of the vermin that comes out of your mouth really disturbs me. So negative, and never any sources other than your subjective experiences. They are so (your posts) negative that I feel you do a great deal of damage around here. Troll of the century!

Ill give you one thing though... it IS all about genetics and thats not necessarily bad (or good). Anyone can push their genetics to the limit. It is my firm belief that if a pre pubescent trans child takes cross hormones therapy they will physically appear completely as their desired sex/gender. I believe that Estrogen coupled with the high levels of HGH in your body at those young ages will allow you to look ... as if that Y chromosome didn't even exist! I much look forward to the future when I get to see trans children enjoy themselves without worry and can access these life saving treatments without "red tape" or societal shaming.

My measurements are... Never mind, there must be something wrong with my tape measure.

Quote from: Dahlia on February 20, 2014, 02:56:35 PM
No, she's right, genetics play a bigger role than hormones.

Without genetics, Earth would be but a barren rock. Of course, hormones trumps all. For example, injecting oestrogen into a nice curvy banana will not a curvy Kim Kardashian make, no matter how much you inject. Administering oestrogen and anti-androgens at an earlier enough age, to a human, XY, prepubescent child, will cause only secondary female sex attributes, governed by the chromosomes, to be expressed.

Quote from: Dahlia on February 20, 2014, 02:56:35 PM
No, she's right, genetics play a bigger role than hormones.

Take a close look at AIS women, totally insensitive to testosterone, yet quite a few of them look (very) masculine; a sloping forehead, square jaw and chin, big ribcage, wide shoulders.
Same goes for quite a few eunuchs in India, when castrated at young age and the same goes for the 'castrato singers' in the 19th century.

It is a matter of genetics.


Beren have you been on estrogen at 12? Or puberty inhibiting hormones?

Estrogen and anti-androgens.

Today i measured my sisters ribcage. It's 10.3 inches wide(or narrow ). Not much difference though!