I am basically wondering does gynomastia effect possible breast size?

Give a rundown on what I know pre HRT. First of yes overweight need to lost a lot (70lbs) to which struggling to even start to lose perhaps something wrong medically there but another issue. As far as looking at sister and mothers breast size that's kind of a gamble in that my mom is a B and my sister is a D and well hoping for a C.

I don't think unreasonable expectation yet at the moment I am just guessing as all that can be done at this point is just that but I do have a size A but the man boob type and I hope they actually decrease once I can start to lose weight. Why smaller well smaller equals firmer:) Before any suggestions about seeing a doctor yes good idea might be very hard for me in that doctor shortage in a small town. Some of the doctors I know would not be transgender friendly at all the other hard part but figure something out:)

Ok real question for those that had some gynomastia pre hrt do you think it helped or hindered female breast growth?

I have it but less than six weeks in it's too soon to tell. However, my gut tells me that, given the various reactions to HRT, only a really large test using hundreds of people with gynecomastia and hundreds without could reliably tease out the effects, if any, of having the condition.

Just from my own quantitative observations, some degree of gynecomastia seems to be a decent indicator that your body is pre-programmed to both respond to estrogens, as well as store fat in the breast area.

It's not necessarily the be all end-all, because one of my friends with no chest whatsoever pre-hormones has developed a full B+ after 4 years of hormones, one of my internet trans friends grew into a D cup from almost nothing, and a LOT of girls do indeed develop breasts from nothing like this. But there's also a lot of them who never got past an A, whereas most of the trans women I know who had some degree of "man boobs" ended up at least in the B range, so the consistency seems to be a bit higher.

I *think* so, but it might be because gynecomastia signals sensitivity to estrogen or something. Personally speaking, I had some true gynecomastia (including breast buds at puberty) and had very fast breast growth even on a super low dose - visible changes within a week, a C cup at 4 months, and 42DD by the end of the second year. (I've then gained about a cup size in the three years since, but growth is clearly slowing down.)  So my anecdotal experience at least is that gynecomastia equaled very early, fast development. I don't know that I ended up any larger than if I would have otherwise, mind you; I think it just happened quicker.

My mom's 34B but my sister is 36DD and our grandmother was busty...

I had gynomastica coming out of my first go at transition. Doubt I managed more than AA back the which was very disappointing. Although I lost weight afterwards and the boobs shrank even more they never fully went away (not surprising, I had been on HRT for two years). As I grew older and put on a bit of weight and they plumped up a little, not much but were noticeable in certain shirts. While I didn't expect much from HRT this time around it seems having the gynomastica was a good launch pad as growth has been very promising (now a full B). I think the central issue is probably whether the gynomastica is due to glandular development or just fatty tissue, in the latter instance it might not make much difference.

Thank you for the replies:)  Yes I didn't expect a end all answer is really as far as I can tell no matter what they have no clue as to breast development just a wait and see thing. The but part is as you have posted is that depending on cause of gynomastia it may very well indicated decent breast growth as a precursor or just plain fatty deposit.

If I were to theorize I would take a stab in the dark and say for the most part if you look at mothers side of the family and look at female breast size that would be a good indicator. Yet the shot in the dark is it may also be a gene passed down from the fathers side as well albeit lesser on fathers side. Why I would guess the latter is possible is that if mother is small her mother is small yet bears a girl that is large perhaps that gene could have come from fathers side. Might not be as directly linked to gender gene such as male pattern baldness. (which I definitely have same pattern) Looking at fathers side of the family I can see traits that are definitely male and some female yet changed with mothers influence as well and such is nature to evolve and change.

One thing I must say that is pure conjecture and just a mere theory. I will patiently wait and find out what happens with no expectations. Just a curious inquiry is all this is:)

Yep, I should have said it was my paternal grandmother; mom's side is all small-breasted, tall, and thin, but both her daughters are short and curvy and busty. Luck of the draw, I guess. And if you look at cis girls, the same pattern emerges - you can often see *someone* the trait probably came from, but it's about as likely to be dad's side as mom's when it comes to breast size (cis girls play these same guessing games in puberty).

Just depends if you are talking about gynecomastia or "moobs". Moobs you get when you are overweight and will or should go away when you lose weight. gynecomastia is more or less actual boobs. They will stay with you no matter how much weight you lose. Of course since breasts consists of fat they will get bigger or smaller but will still stay there. I've had gynecomastia since puberty and they have been with me since. At 130 I had little boobs and at 200 something they got a little bigger and now at 167 they are still here. One way to tell is if they are sensitive like a ciswoman's then that is gynecomastia, if not then it is probably due to weight. Or mine are sensitive anyway. Whether it helps or not I don't know but I don't want anything really bigger than an A cup anyway.