you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

Taylor Swift is (supposedly) 5’10" and around 130lbs.

That is skinny. Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    I think it depends on where you live too, skinny (as in thinner than average) being a relative measure.

    I live somewhere extremely skinny by global standards and she wouldn't be called skinny, people might say, "yeah I guess she's skinny" if asked, but she wouldn't be seen as "a skinny person" because she wouldn't be far off the average. Same way a 5'8 woman wouldn't be a "tall woman" in the Netherlands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Still seems like a definitional problem, with an imprecise meaning behind the word "skinny."

    Even according to BMI, she’s bordering on underweight.

    Bordering on, but still on the "normal" side of the chart.

    Does "skinny" look to broad population averages, or celebrity averages, or even celebrity averages for that particular age, or some kind of ideal? Is "skinny" a pejorative, negatively loaded term?

    I wouldn't call Taylor Swift "skinny" if that's intended to mean thinner than ideal. But she is thinner than the American average. Is the American average considered "fat"? How much of a gap is there between skinny and fat, occupied by people who are neither?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (9 children)

    BMI is a terrible metric, and even then her BMI is on the lower end of the normal range.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    Oh I'm aware. That's why I threw in that even according to the faulty BMI scale for women, Taylor Swift is considered bordering on underweight to being underweight.

    That you think Taylor Swift isn't skinny says way more about you than anything else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Her weight has fluctuated, like most normal people. When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130. Certainly not in the reference photo, which is probably the fullest I've seen her. There are plenty of photos where you could make the argument, but they look much more like the "exaggerated" sketch anyway. She is not skinny in the reference photo provided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    When she was closer to 115, she was closer to skinny, not at 130.

    She was unhealthily underweight at 115.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Aka "skinny"

    And unhealthily overweight = "fat"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Wow you cleared up all the confusion immediately with this really clear definition of skinny and fat! WHHOOOAAAA WOWWWEEE /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    From the photo she would appear to weight more than 130lbs (for 5 10 height). My one daughter is 130 at 5' 8" and looks much skinnier than TS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    It’s almost like everyone’s body is different or something. Weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments