HER DAD’S TALLER. HOLY SHIT.
genetics, right? at least one of her parents had to be similarly tall.
You might be surprised! My uncle is 170 cm tall, his wife about 165, and two of their sons are about 170. Their third son is nearly 195 cm. Yes, he’s their biological child - we’ve checked!
Both my aunt and uncle had tall fathers and very short mothers. Height is polygenic (multiple genes are responsible), so my cousin won the height allele lottery and inherited a higher proportion of the height increasing traits both parents carried, making him a height outlier.
But it’s paramount that we ban the 5’5" trans girl who has testosterone lower than cis girls from playing volleyball because…reasons.
You clearly don’t know much about the sport. Women’s net is far lower because there’s a significant physical power difference between men and women. It’s not just about average height.
Sure. There are differences in musculature and such. But after a period of hormone therapy, those muscular differences disappear. When this is pointed out, transphobes inevitably move the goalposts and start talking about larger bone/frame size. Or they’ll spread lies about how trans women must have larger frames and thus be a danger to their cis peers. Well here’s this cis woman, with a massive frame size, who could utterly stomp all over the vast majority of trans female athletes. And she’s allowed to play.
But people just make ignorant assumptions and assume that the athletic performance of trans women is anything remotely like the athletic performance of cis men. They start with that conclusion and work backwards from there.
Well then you’d have to allow for added criteria that this fictional transgender person do tests to corroborate that they don’t have an unfair advantage over their peers.
I have literally nothing against trans people but there have been at least one case where a trans person had an exaggerated unfair advantage. This case of one “Lia Thomas”, who went from 462 in male rankings to 1 in female rankings. So yeah, I do believe that these extra controls should be performed.
You’re repeating right wing propaganda. Here’s a breakdown of Thomas’s actual performance before she was hounded out of competition:
https://www.pinkmantaray.com/resources/lia
And even if you could prove there was some advantage in swimming events, why would you immediately go to the bigoted solution of banning people from competing? That’s what makes this so clear that this isn’t about sports, it’s about bigotry. If you can prove that trans women have some advantage in individual swimming events, fine, give them a handicap to cancel it out. That way you can still respect everyone’s human rights and dignity, even if you do prove that there is some advantage.
But you have never once in your entire life seen a Republican politician propose using handicaps rather than bigoted bans. Because it’s not about fairness, it’s about bigotry.
Stop making shit up to fit your narrative. It detracts from the actual issue.
What am I making up? This woman almost certainly has athletic advantages far greater than the vast majority of the trans athletes people get so apoplectic about.
Stop making shit up to fit your narrative. It detracta (sic) from the actual issue.
Yes. Her being born that way is completely fair. As she was born that way. Same goes for Caster Semenya.
Taking drugs to “alter” is against all sports.
But hey, South Park said it best.
If someone has ADHD and takes medication - as directed - to help them focus on their training regiment, would that make you as upset? It’s certainly a drug to “alter,” as you say.
For Americans who have the height mode of their brain stuck in “Freedom Units”:
Anna Smrek is roughly 6’ 9"
‘Short King’ is roughly 5’ 3"
…
For data nerds:
Going by total data for the whole globe, all people:
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
Anna is … off the charts, one of if not the actual tallest adult women in the world, literally breaks the calculator.
Anna would be at… the 99.9(8/9)% percentile of men by height, which means that if you use 8.2 billion as a world population, there are at most approximately 1.6 million men as tall or taller than her.
EDIT: I forgor to divide by two, women vs men, so uh, 800k.
===
‘Short King’ is under the 1st percentile of men (0.77), he is shorter than 99.3%+ of adult men.
‘Short King’ would be at about the 25th percentile of women by height, which means he is actually still as tall or taller than 25% of women, approximately 2 billion.
EDIT: I did the same forgor /2, so, 1 billion, thanks to FundMECFSResearch for catching my error!
===
Average global male height ~= 178 cm / 5’ 10"
Average global female height ~= 165 cm / 5’ 5"
…
Possibly also relevant:
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-tall-was-Goliath.html
If you use a more reasonable and realistic measurement of cubits and spans, and go with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament/Torah…
Goliath, the mythical warrior felled by David and his sling, whose name is now just a common euphemism for ‘giant’…
Yeah he was only about 6’ 6", or about 198 cm.
So…Anna could probably roughly rest her nose on the top of Goliath’s head, without bending her neck (or at least not much).
…
Another fun addendum, for I guess dating data nerds?:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020
(If someone can find a more recent study that specifically looks into this, I’d appreciate it!)
Broadly speaking, women prefer taller men more strongly than men prefer shorter women, by a factor of roughly 2.625x.
Women prefer, on average, a larger height difference between themselves and their partner (i.e. males being much taller than themselves) than men do. This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
In Freedom Units, thats roughly women being most satisfied with a man 8 inches taller than them, men being most satisfied with a woman about 3 inches shorter than them.
This means a 5’ 10" average guy will tend to be well satisfied with a 5’ 7" woman’s height, but she will tend to not be well satisfied with the man’s height, herself on average, ideally, looking for a 6’ 3" man.
Even if it was a 5’ 10" man and an [EDIT: Whoops, too many numbers, too fast, this would actually be a somewhat shorter than] average 5’ 3" woman, she’d still tend to ideally prefer a 5’ 11" man, on average.
So, to more accurately assess 'Short King’s realistic dating pool, we actually need to find women who are 8 inches shorter than him.
And that works out to women 4’ 7" or shorter.
Which is the 0.02 percentile… meaning that 'Short King’s realistic dating pool is at worst, just as small as the number of men who are as tall or taller than Anna.
Or, perhaps both Anna and Short King need to find partners who simply accept them and are satisfied by them via being uncommonly partner-height indifferent.
Good luck to both of them!
This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
I don’t have access to the full article, but it sounds like they didn’t examine the sliding scale of height preferences, by one’s own height.
The article says that taller people have a taller ideal height for their partners. And it also says that on average women’s preference is a partner 21cm taller than themselves, and men had a preference for 8cm shorter. But from the publicly available text, it doesn’t seem to report on whether that preferred delta between one’s own height and the ideal partner height changed with the absolute height of themselves.
So I’m curious: does the data support the conclusion that a 5’ (1.52m) woman would prefer a 5’8" (1.73m) partner, and that a 5’8" (1.73m) woman would also still prefer that 21cm/8 inch difference, looking for a 6’4" (1.94) partner? Or is there a sliding scale where already tall people aren’t exactly looking for excessively unusual outliers, and that the preference of tall women is something smaller than 21cm, such that the overall average might be that very short women prefer a big height difference but very tall women prefer a small height difference?
GOOD thing she isn’t Trans! OTHERWISE she would have an Unfair Advantage! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Poor girl. I’ve never met a super tall girl that liked being tall. In my teens I worked Nordstrom women’s shoes. That is one of the only places with a stock of very large sizes.
Super tall women are an involuntary circus act everywhere they go. I don’t envy that. All I have met have a certain sadness in their eyes. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I see sad eyes here.
Can confirm. Wife is 6 feet tall and wishes she was half a foot shorter (in height before any comedians jump in) but we visited Bergen in Norway recently and she was so delighted that she could buy clothes off the rack and pretty shoes.
But her height is actually useful. She’s a starter in a sport in which height is a useful physical trait, which helped her with university admissions with a scholarship. She’s apparently a professional who has been on the roster of some overseas teams, and plays for her national team (Canada).
Plus growing up in a family with tall people might make it easier to deal with. Her dad is former NBA player Mike Smrek and presumably has a social circle of very tall people and maybe even their very tall children.
So I don’t doubt that a lot of tall women actively dislike their own height. But this particular woman probably has reason to like being tall.
Useful until she needs to access anything mass-manufactured where height effects experience: cars, planes, cloths, beds, chairs, countertops, rakes, rollercoasters, etc.
Having sports where height is an advantage does not change that the world was designed at about 4/5th the scale of what would be comfortable. It can be tiresome after a few decades.
Deleted by author
All the actually short girls (5’3" or less) I know complain as well. Feet too small for shops to have, boobs not accounted for in clothing, etc. Your perspective probably counts average and just below average girls as short.
yeah, every smol girl talks about how they wish they were tall, but they have no idea how embarrassing it is, the way it invalidates your femininity and so on
Deleted by author
Some of do wish we were tall. Not all of us care what a potential mate finds “cute”. We want to be able to be safe wearing seatbelts instead of higher chances of decapitation. We want to be responded to like adults, especially in our 40’s, instead of treated like children. We want to be independent while working on and around our homes without fear of falling of stools and ladders to put dishes away or calling a man for help. Being told a job your interested in wouldn’t be a good fit, because of your size…
I even have pairs of “shit stompers”, as my friends call them, platform boots that give me about 2 1/2 inches more height so I can be self-reliant. Sold as “clubbing boots” but I wear them regularly for mundane shit.
Getting literally looked down on, by everyone, everyday, gets really tiring, especially after decades of it. I am 5"3 (so not even THAT short) and can’t see shit in large crowds besides asses and backs. Have been actually stepped on by tall folks (even people just at 5’6"… like, come the fuck on) who don’t realize there are people shorter than their eyes and don’t care to look down. My head gets hit by average and tall people’s elbows (hard) in club or crowd environments because again, they have no idea someone can exist below their eyeline, or just don’t care. Can’t go to bars or clubs alone because we are easy “marks” so we need an adult or a man to accompany us, to dissuade sexual preditors.
Anyone remember vehicles with bench seats? How degrading is it to not be able to reach the pedals because the seat only has 3 notches, and the closest one is still for people taller than you? Getting told “you should get yourself a booster seat” like I’m a kid in a restaurant.
Not every girl wants to be “cute”. Some of just want to “be”, and be safe. Self defense classes really drilled into my head the dangers of “looking like an easy mark” it’s assumed short women won’t put up as much of a fight and are easier prey. Learned to carry a “big” presence, and found a lot less sketchy characters would try to approach me. Staying that alert is fucking exhausting and makes going out, at night, in cities, to large parking lots, to bars and clubs, to concerts, a lot less enjoyable.
Sorry for the rant. But just because some folks might see short as cute, does NOT mean we short folks concur, or see that “cute” makes up for the rest of the shit and dangers we have to deal with. Or, even want to be “cute”.
She’ll probably make tons of money as a professional athlete, so she’s probably ok with it.
Volleyball does not pay well at all.
Damn, for someone 80 times taller he looks so small… he must be very far away
How is a 1.6m man useful for scale? That height is in the lowest 1% of males. Choosing someone of that height and putting them next to the woman is purely done to exaggerate the difference. This photo is just staged to be eye catching and make her look freakish.
She is in the top percentile for women but comparing her with the bottom percentile for men is nonsense. She should be in a photo with a man of average height.
Please don’t give me new fetishes
I wonder if we will ever evolve to the point where we can talk about women online without some mad lad needing to sexualise them.
She would have to put pants on, at least.
After copulation, the female eats the male to gain energy for her offspring.
Please🥺
Down bad
Holy cow. I thought this comment section would be filled with light hearted jokes. Some of yall need get your chronically online asses outside.
The is the most reddit esque comment section I’ve seen on lemmy and it’s gross
There are plenty of reasonable comments. Most have more upvotes than the sexualizing ones. That said, look closely at what she is wearing in the pic. If she put shorts on, the sides of that thing would still be above the shorts. The image was designed to have sexual appeal. She is showing more skin than most people have. So of course some people are going to go in that direction. Men in general haven’t evolved enough not to.
With an image designed to have sexual appeal, is it wrong to see the sexual appeal?
I’m not disagreeing with you but try using a period now and again they don’t cost any money
G.o.f.u.c.k.y.o.u.r.s.e.l.f. I use proper punctuation in my work emails and thats about it. This is the best youll get
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
.
We need more humanitarians on the ground like you, selflessly distributing punctuation in war-torn regions.
