i’m not sure which of these i should be going for. like either bbl (for width of hips) or clavicle reduction and scapula reduction. >1.20 shr>1.55 bideltoid/chest breadth ratio>0.734 whr breadth>0.772 chest breadth/hip breadth ratiowhich of those two options would be best with a body shape like this? i ain’t gonna bother to say circumference ratios they’re hardly useful in this case
>>41700345What matters for surgery decisions is biacromial, not bideltoid.
>>41700525it’s kinda difficult to measure by myself though so im not fully sure what mine isi forgot to say that my bmi is about 16 so these measurements are pretty much down to the bone for me if that’s important
>>41700557No wonder you don't look feminine if your BMI is 16, god damn. Cis females don't look feminine at that number either
>>41700597yes they do? have you never been on edtwt?plus gaining weight won’t make me look more like a woman because it won’t make my hips wider and that’s a fact just answer which surgery i should get based on what ive said.
>>41700345You need both and even then it might not be enough. My SHR is 1.12 and my WHR is 0.68 yet I still get called sir frequently.
>>41700763aight
>>41700649>edtwtsounds fun desu ive only ever lurked around on shtwt
>>41700649why wont gaining weight make your hips wider?
>>41702141Because it was a bait post
>>41702141huh? why would it? Looking at anatomical images show there’s barely any soft tissue to hip breadth, it’s like 99% bone (greater trochanter to greater trochanter yk). and basing it on anecdotes from trans women ‘round ‘ere, basically no one got wider hips from gaining weight, UNLESS they got an increase in width of bone (which i ain’t getting)circumference is another story but also a less important one, ya see.>>41702147baiting what lmfao? i’m genuinely just asking what i gotta get
bump cause i’m annoying and i want answers
BBL for sure, it will lead to horny dudes and female admirers, it is a surgery you can reverse in a year with ozempic and T if you decide you hate it and lipo technique has been around for decades. Getting your upper body bones chopped and reduced is asking for a life time of chronic pain and issues that could easily cascade into back, neck etc problems. How long has this technique been around? Can you provide evidence of a male athlete or body builder that has had this and hasn’t had any problems? What about a bimbo that has breast implants.
>>41703639why would a male athlete or bodybuilder get shoulder reduction loli guess it hasn’t been around for that long but whatever i don’t think that’s a reason for concern. it will be long until i can afford it anyway
>>41703678Clavicle fractures frequently result in some effective shortening of the bone. The amount removed during clavicle reduction is far below the limit of what can be removed without limiting range of motion.
>>41703707yeah i’m aware there will be a limited range of motioni just don’t really care enough about it.i just want to be able to pass.
>>41703756retard
>>41700345clavicle reduction often looks weird with a male ribcage so unless you have a tiny ribcage go with bbl
>>41703756The point is there WON'T be a noticeable reduction in range of motion. IIRC you only start getting limited motion at ~30% length reduction. Clavicle reduction surgery removes less than 20% of length.This article describes an aggressive removal (2.8cm per side) from 17cm clavicles i.e. 16.5% length reduction.https://exploreplasticsurgery.com/plastic-surgery-case-study-shoulder-reduction-surgery-in-tall-female-with-large-clavicles/
>>41703809Male and female rib cages are the same width when adjusted for height.
>>41703778what?>>41703809that’s why i mentioned bideltoid/chest breadth ratio. i’m not sure what would be considered tiny. in any case my chest breadth is slightly below 10” and underbust circumference is about 26.5”, though this of course is at a bmi of 16 so i presume it will increase when gaining weight. would this be too bad?>>41703819i see, i misread. Then there’s no problem with it is there.
>>41703846they have different shapes so even if the max width is the same the width at the top and bottom is greater for males>>41703920>26.5 ingigaluckshit stickmoder just gain weight don’t fucking ruin your skeleton lol
>>41703972yeah but my hips are like 13” wide
>>41703992that’s fine when ur that thin
>>41703972Male rib cages are more triangular, female rib cages are more rectangular. The difference is that female rib cages are shallower i.e. males are more round and barrel-shaped.
>>41703846cope
>>41704036that’s what I’m saying the upper ribcage is bigger for males so if your clavicle length is too short it looks uncanny
>>41704031no it’s not since it won’t get wider if i were NOT that thin> Looking at anatomical images show there’s barely any soft tissue to hip breadth, it’s like 99% bone (greater trochanter to greater trochanter yk). and basing it on anecdotes from trans women ‘round ‘ere, basically no one got wider hips from gaining weight, UNLESS they got an increase in width of bone (which i ain’t getting)>>41704058would it be fine with my ribcage width then?
>>41704102>would it be fine with my ribcage width then?it wouldn'tyou're fucked
>>41704058If male and female rib cages are the same breadth (adjusted for height) at the widest point, and male rib cages are more triangular than female rib cages are, then higher up a female rib cage will be wider than the male rib cage for a given maximum breadth. Try drawing a triangle and a square which have the same width at the bottom.Males appear wider because of greater muscle development (pecs and lats) and longer clavicles.
>>41704109damn. so i basically just will never pass no matter the money i spend?while i don’t think my ribcage width is good i didn’t think was THAT terrible because i’ve seen many get shoulder reduction and i would guess every one of them have a less wide ribcage
>>41704161>so i basically just will never pass no matter the money i spend?with your measurements, very unlikely
>>41704161ur ribcage is incredibly good but to worry about proportions when ur 16bmi is dumb
>>41704176i see
>>41704219 i think it’s entirely fair to worry about it, especially seeing as multiple people here in this thread have said they’re fucked lol
>>41704112that’s not what I meant, chest breadth is measured at the bust point, so the male ribcage will be wider above that
>>41704228ppl are just being mean lol are u new here
>>41704219>>41704228Proportions also depend on height. For example pelvis width has a sublinear relationship with height in females (needs to be large enough to deliver a baby, but not bigger than that) whereas shoulder width increases more linearly with height.
>>41704245been here for a few years. i just think it’s fair to believe what they’re saying since it kinda makes sense. and people aren’t really that mean when people actually are passoids or have potential for the most part from what i’ve seen
>>41704237Do you think male rib cages have an inverted triangle shape?
>>41703819Lol it is about pain too like i dont think u want to need fent to wipe yer ass >>41703972
>>41704286well no one in the right mind is going to say a 26.5in underbust is bad cmon
>>41704302it’s more about the width though. plus it’s in relation to my pretty much nonexistent hips yano
>>41704324Again, chest width differences are mostly driven by greater upper body muscle mass in males, lats and pecs. Lats attach to the humeri, which are spaced further apart in males because of longer clavicles, making them look even wider.
>>41704354i see. so do you think i should get shoukder reduction, bbl for width, or both then?
>>41704379Put your bony measurements into something like https://grayoasis.com/ANSUR/ and see where you're at for your height relative to male and female averages for your height.
>>41704426ansur sucks its super hugboxxy
>>41704454nta but you could try the ceaser data set instead
>>41704454At least for biacromial breadth, ANSUR is in line with CDC studies. See https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdfANSUR II average male biacromial index quartiles = 0.230, 0.236, 0.244ANSUR II average female biacromial index quartiles = 0.217, 0.224, 0.232CDC average male biacromial index quartiles = 0.226, 0.234, 0.243CDC average female biacromial index quartiles = 0.218, 0.226, 0.236My private suspicion is that people who say ANSUR is hugboxy are mismeasuring their biacromial breadth. It's very difficult to measure accurately by yourself.
>>41704502is there a guide to making each measurement? everywhere just assumes you already have your measurements.
>>41704513http://tools.openlab.psu.edu/publicData/ANSURII-TR15-007.pdf contains instructions for ANSUR II measurements.The biggest mistake I've seen people make is measuring from the little upward facing knob on the acromion, not the outer edge of the acromion. That can easily give them a figure that's an inch shorter than the true breadth.
>>41704552<3 thanks. i cant keep all these big words in my brain is like all phrenology to me.
>>41704486for me ceasar doesn’t have hip or chest breadth. delstu seems to out my shr at androgynous, but that’s still kind of hugbox based on what it has as average bideltoid, plus it doesn’t have chest breadth from what i can see.>>41704502yeah i just don’t do biacromial because i know it’s too difficult to accurately measure by myself
>>41704572Delstu has bideltoid:height data that are implausible for adult females. Most likely it's not using true bideltoid.Note that ANSUR I chest breadth is not the bony measurement, whereas ANSUR II is the bony measurement.
>>41704586you mean its showing the bideltoid as too large?also in pretty sure ansur 2 has like a higher bideltoid average for women iirc? since combatant roles or smth>>41704426and why not just answer the question now that i think about it lol
>>41704668I suspect Delstu bideltoid is smaller than true bideltoid.The ANSUR II sample contained no female infantry.
OP if you're worried about your rib cage and shoulders then remember that Amanda Righetti is a successful model and actress. Nobody thinks she's trans.
>>41704735nah average bideltoid is probably like 12-13” for women im pretty sure>>41704793cishon
>>41704823The average BIACROMIAL in women is 36.5cm i.e. 14.3". There's no way the average bideltoid in women is anywhere near 13".
>>41704866i definitely think it is because i have wide shoulders (have been told so) and mine are like 15.5”. like if i compare my shoulders to any woman i se outside im wider by quite a bit. of course my hips are also much smaller, 1.2 shr as i said.
>>41704793stealth tranny
thread got off track i still want the question answered everyone here seems to avoid it except the person who said both probably and the other who said it’s overand then someone gonna say the person who said it’s over was just being mean but doesn’t answer so idk what to believe
>>41705223the answer is none of us know for sure because you haven't posted photos, haven't told us concrete bony measurements and height but only soft tissue ratios, and you're also at a stupid weight for your height right now
>>41705273i mean the measurements should be fine since im at a low bmi. photos aren’t really accurate but i guess i can remake the thread later i dont have any photos to use rn tho
>>41705025She has literally given birth.>>41704883You're describing children. Adult women do not look like children.I've given you the data for biacromial breadth.ANSUR I says 36.3cm: http://tools.openlab.psu.edu/publicData/ANSUR-TR89-044.pdfANSUR II says 36.5cm: http://tools.openlab.psu.edu/publicData/ANSURII-TR15-007.pdfCDC says 36.6cm: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_249.pdfNCSU says 36.5cm: https://ergocenter.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/07/Anthropometry-Summary-Table-2020.pdfBideltoid is necessarily broader than biacromial.
>>41705310i’m not describing children im describing the adult women i see in my day to day life like in uni and around town etc
>>41705331So you're going on your perception of them, which is likely distorted because you're focused on how feminine you feel their bodies are compared to how masculine you feel your body is. You're definitely not measuring them objectively.The data are consistent across sources. Average biacromial breadth for adult US females is around 36.5cm.
Don't do it OP. I got clavicle reduction. Biacromial went from 37cm to 33cm. Now I look like a teenage boy. It's not good.
>>41705401do you look any different from behind though?any pain?complications?
>>41705411No pain or complications. I got it done one shoulder at a time, which meant longer recovery but fewer limitations during it. I don't see much different from behind, but my boyfriend said there was a noticeable change. To me it's much more visible from the front.
>>41705423>I don't see much different from behindjust as i thoughtthat's all i needed to know
>>41705427Oh yeah. Added bonus is that clothes no longer fit me properly. Either they're too wide at the shoulders, or too short.
>>41705401as opposed to looking like a man? or what? >>41705432well then it sounds good for me as i struggle to fit in clothes due to wide shoulders
>>41705354then i suppose any surgery to widen my hips would be best as i know for a fact they’re small
>>41705310>She has literally given birth.proof that she wasnt just wearing a pregnancy belly and letting a surrogate give birth for her?
>>41705497Yes, as opposed to looking like a man.
>>41705554well then it at least was an improvement, no? so why advise against it?
>>41705585Because now I look half my actual age.
>>41700649how do you expect to get a bbl if your bmi is 16? you don't have enough fat to transfer. plus even the shittiest of cosmetic surgeons won't operate on you, you'll die on the table at that weight.
>>41705598better than looking like a man tho
>>41705645in the future i mean. i can’t afford either of those right now. i’m of course gonna gain weight first
>>41705655ah my bad, i assumed u planned to maintain since u said gaining weight wasnt an option
>>41705671i don’t think i said gaining weight isn’t an option, i just said gaining weight won’t make me pass better
>>41705648Not really. Nobody your age wants to date you when you look like you could be a minor.
