I'm a hair over 5'10" and I run into teenage women in flats who are taller than I am. The other day while going into the grocery store there were four of us going in, not a one of us in heels, and all my height or above. Still not the norm but I have noticed that it is easier to find long torso tops and Tall jeans these days.

Lost again, don't doubt you, but... in the last 30 years, the height for women the general US population has only increased 1 inch. But, the US population has also become more diverse, with more latin immigrants (usually smaller) contributing to the average. So, locally, its highly possible that even though the general average is still not that high, the variance around the average could be high, meaning there are more people significantly smaller and taller than the average.

Quote from: Isabelle St-Pierre on December 27, 2007, 06:02:53 PMLike I mentioned above, the loss of muscle mass is normal when you're on HRT, so I'm not surprised you have gone down in band size...although at 32 band is hard to find decent bras in.

In less than a year band size decreased from 40 to 38, while my cup size increased from A to C.

Quote from: Isabelle St-Pierreremember...the only truly important measure is how you look over all...I personally believe that way to much emphasis is placed on size anyway...

Thanks for saying this... you're right about it. I'm pretty good looking overall for a big girl.

High 5 from another vegetarian.

heh bra size is an eternal struggle... my best friend is 28-30 DD/e... she really only has the pornstar bras to choose from! and she hates it
R

At least when the number is in the mid-thirties you stand a chance of finding a pretty bra. Once I got down to 38, I suddenly had lots more choices... although 36 is better supplied.

Quote from: Hypatia on December 28, 2007, 01:55:33 PM
At least when the number is in the mid-thirties you stand a chance of finding a pretty bra. Once I got down to 38, I suddenly had lots more choices... although 36 is better supplied.

Invest in a couple bra extenders.

6'2 here. It was the main reason why I didn't start to transition until a month ago (age 22).


Now, I'm pretty sure that I'll end up being one sexy bitch. 

Quote from: Traverse on December 30, 2007, 08:18:25 PM
6'2 here. It was the main reason why I didn't start to transition until a month ago (age 22).


Now, I'm pretty sure that I'll end up being one sexy bitch. 

hehe that was one of the main reasons for me as well.  Now I can only hope I turn out okay

Well I transitioned and now I'm just a bitch.

Cindy

Quote from: Keira on December 27, 2007, 07:19:17 PM

Lost again, don't doubt you, but... in the last 30 years, the height for women the general US population has only increased 1 inch. But, the US population has also become more diverse, with more latin immigrants (usually smaller) contributing to the average. So, locally, its highly possible that even though the general average is still not that high, the variance around the average could be high, meaning there are more people significantly smaller and taller than the average.

Hi, Keira,

Sometimes stats are just numbers.  I stand 5 feet, 11.5 inches tall or 181.61 cm.  That is barefoot.

When I lived in Midland, Ontario, on the east end of Georgian Bay, I thought that I was a large woman compared to the rest of the populace, easy to see, standing out in the crowd.

One day I went shopping in a Zehr's/RCSS in Midland and I was surprised to see other women in there who were taller than me.  They were younger and taller, some with hips much wider than mine.  As time went on I saw tall women more often at Wal Mart, Home Depot, the bank, and other stores, and they were always there but there has been no great influx of people to Midland and Penetanguishine, the two towns in that area.

I have a guy friend who lives in Minnesota and he told me about BMWs, not the car, but "big Minnesota women."

You can argue this as much as you want but the incidence of taller women is true.  Just ask one of us who are tall and seen other women who are taller, in the U.S., in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.  I am a woman and believe me, I notice.

As for tall being equal to sexy, I can't say that it's a magic elixir or a magic ingredient.  I believe that it's more how a woman carries herself and her own desire to be sexy that is the winning combination.

Wing Walker

sure helps you look sexyer than short n dumpy
R

I don't WHY I have to argue that tall iis still rare when all statistics say it.
Statistics DO have meanings. Most people totallly misunderstand them.

And young women are only marginally taller than their parents.
Why would they not be, since large increase in height is linked to change
in nutritional imput and health. In general, the health of the female population
has not increased, so height has not increased substantially from the last generation.
It has increased from those born pre 1960 population; so it depends how you define young.

Like I said, locally, because of genetics or whatever, there may be pockets
of slightly taler women.  But, its unlikely that the average of this pocket
would be taller than the population in their original country.

The tallest women as a whole are in iceland and still, most women there are belllow 5 foot 8.
I;ve been there, and just about everywhere in the US and abroad,
and believe nowhere have I seen more talll women than in that country.

Depending on variance and locality,
there could be 0.05 - 0.5% of
the female population over 6 foot tall. Even a seemingly low pecentage like
0.5%, still means you'd  see 1/200 women taller than 6 foot, which I feel is A LOT.

Population averages are impossible to ascertain visually because we tend to
look out for things that fit our view of the world.

Quote from: Keira on December 31, 2007, 09:42:54 AM

I don't WHY I have to argue that tall iis still rare when all statistics say it.
Statistics DO have meanings. Most people totallly misunderstand them.

And young women are only marginally taller than their parents.
Why would they not be, since large increase in height is linked to change
in nutritional imput and health. In general, the health of the female population
has not increased, so height has not increased substantially from the last generation.
It has increased from those born pre 1960 population; so it depends how you define young.

Like I said, locally, because of genetics or whatever, there may be pockets
of slightly taler women.  But, its unlikely that the average of this pocket
would be taller than the population in their original country.

The tallest women as a whole are in iceland and still, most women there are belllow 5 foot 8.
I;ve been there, and just about everywhere in the US and abroad,
and believe nowhere have I seen more talll women than in that country.

Depending on variance and locality,
there could be 0.05 - 0.5% of
the female population over 6 foot tall. Even a seemingly low pecentage like
0.5%, still means you'd  see 1/200 women taller than 6 foot, which I feel is A LOT.

Population averages are impossible to ascertain visually because we tend to
look out for things that fit our view of the world.

Hi, Keira,

I am glad that the retailers of clothing and shoes are are catching on to the fact that there is an increasing number of tall women in the general population.  They show it with expanded inventories of clothing and shoes for women who stand 181.61 cm tall and taller with U.S. shoe sizes of 11.5 to 12.  I suppose that they could make sizes within n-standard deviations and leave it like that, and maybe even label them that way.

There is no need to feel that you must argue as this is nothing more than a conversation.

Statistics are not carved in stone. 

Wing Walker

Statistics are not carved in stone! ARGGGGG
Of course, methodology is important. But stats mean something.
Anyway, moving along...

The reason why retailers are stocking clothing for taller people is
not because there are that much more taller people. Its just they are taking
notice of them! Have you aver wondered why there has been
clothing for petite women for year (women below average height) when
there was none for women above average height. There has always
been as many women at both ends of the bell curve.

Tall women made do with ill fitting clothing forever!
But, ill fitting clothe with less length usually doesn't look
as bad in women than petite's wearing regular clothing.


I've worn "normal" clothes all the time and the place where it bothers
most is in pants and coats. In everything else, there is a way around
the length problem.

Full sleaved blouses are another anoying place. Though,
with the options in tops, a tall women can go around the non availabiliy
of fitting blouses.

Stats are also based on a sample size of a population to infer meaning about everyone.

There is always a possibility to get skewed results with anything you do, not to mention the standard deviation can also become skewed if you don't go about it the "correct" way.  Not saying that stats lie, but people who make them do very much so

I'm not saying it's normal for any woman to be over 5'8 either haha, but just my view on looking at stats in general.

Shanetastic, the problem is not stats, its the laypeople's use of stats.
When you don't understand how it can be abuse you're ripe to be abused
by its use. What makes most mad is when people who know how to use
stats willingly abuse those that don't. I can sort of accept the blind leading
the blind, but cannot endure the sighted leading the blinds over a cliff.


Myself, the several stats courses I did, are amongst the easiest.
Once you get into advanced math used in physics (was in physics before switching to engineering) or some more abstract math which are mainly head trips disconnected from any possible reality, you think of stats as quaints.

Stats was still an interesting subject.  I find it harder than calculus or any other math I've taken so far.  I think that's because I tend to have that algebra based mindset though.  Physics is super dooper hard too, not looking forward to taking another physics class  

Either way though, what you said about it all makes sense

Psychology is the statistical analysis of observable behaviour.  Comments, please?

99% of all persons serving time in the Canadian prison system have eaten tomatoes.  Therefore, tomato eaters are the most likely people to go to jail.

Statistics are most reliable when not *strictly* applied to people but work better with events.  Comments, please.

Wing Walker

Wing Walker,
you respond to one of my threads in a sarcastic way many times.
Its very annoying BTW.

I certainly don't want to go into a discussion of stats here. First, its off topic,
second its pointless if you've already got your own idea.

Since 99% of prisoners tomato eaters (if indeed its a real stat)
and being in prison are certainly uncorrellated variables, your assertion is absurd.

The problem with using stats on people is the difficulty in isolating independent variables.
This is the same problem that causes so many medical studies to fail because
of bad design. Wrong conclusion are extracted out of the data not because stats
is bad, but because the data doesn't allow to give conclusive results and people
don't notice that its the case (Often, its another study team that notices the
methodology and study design faults).

Quote from: Rachael on December 31, 2007, 06:54:21 AM
sure helps you look sexyer than short n dumpy
R

LOL w/ ya, Rachael!

WW

Posted on: December 31, 2007, 07:57:18 PM

---

Quote from: Keira on December 31, 2007, 05:29:39 PM

Wing Walker,
you respond to one of my threads in a sarcastic way many times.
Its very annoying BTW.

I certainly don't want to go into a discussion of stats here. First, its off topic,
second its pointless if you've already got your own idea.

Since 99% of prisoners tomato eaters (if indeed its a real stat)
and being in prison are certainly uncorrellated variables, your assertion is absurd.

The problem with using stats on people is the difficulty in isolating independent variables.
This is the same problem that causes so many medical studies to fail because
of bad design. Wrong conclusion are extracted out of the data not because stats
is bad, but because the data doesn't allow to give conclusive results and people
don't notice that its the case (Often, its another study team that notices the
methodology and study design faults).

Hi, Kiera,

I directed nothing at you.  I posted some propositions for comment from anyone who wishes to make a comment.

Statistics can be manipulated and used to prove whatever one wants to prove. 

I am not a small woman.  Petite is not me.  I notice other women who appear to me to be as tall as I am or taller.  It makes me feel better about myself to see them, and we are out there.  That is an "unquantified statistic" that I notice.

Wing Walker
The First Rule of Discussion:  Shoot at the premise, never the one who puts it forth