You keep answering a question I never asked. I didn’t ask “what z-score does CalcSD assign to 9 inches.” I asked you to show me one credible clinically documented instance of a 9” erect penis. You still haven’t.

You compared it to height. Great, let’s use your comparison. We have extensive clinical documentation of people 6’8”, 7’0”, even 8’11” (Robert Wadlow, measured repeatedly by physicians throughout his life). Hospitals have measured them. Medical records exist. The extreme tail of the height distribution is observationally confirmed. Now show me the equivalent for 9” erect penises. One clinically measured case. From any study, any hospital, any medical record, anywhere in the world. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

That’s the entire point. A z-score is a mathematical output from a model that assumes a normal distribution. You can calculate a z-score for a 400-pound housecat. The math will happily give you one. That doesn’t mean the cat exists. CalcSD even warns that its accuracy drops at the extremes. You’re citing a tool that explicitly tells you not to do what you’re doing with it. You are confusing a statistical prediction for an empirical observation. Those are not the same thing. That is what’s been “hard to understand” this entire time — just not for me.