Why resort to arguing about something easily verifiable? I'd understand if it was something subjective, but this really isn't. Here's literally the first image result for "male vs female proportions", cropped to just a female because this is /e/.

>>2988418
Sure, humans can have wildly different proportions, but when strictly talking standards, literally according to this chart:
>woman's clavicle is slanted
No. I'm actually not sure what you mean by that, from the side or from the front? It's clearly not slanted from the front.
>does not complete in the center beneath the neck. Male clavicles do.
No? Google the full picture, the clavicles have similar spacing.
>women's fingertips are level with their vagina
Clearly not.
>Male hands are also larger
Yes, though I'm not sure how it relates to Disney. Disney women have smaller hands than Disney men.
>male skulls have a squarish shape to them while women have an ovular-shape
Sure, though again, Disney women have oval faces and men tend to have angular shapes.
>Women's shoulders will always equal in width with their hips
Not on average, no. Refer to picture. The difference is smaller than men's, but it's far from equal. It is sometimes the case, especially when you're telling at a glance and factoring in possible fat, but it's not average.

I'm indifferent to Disney as much as the next anime-aesthetic-fan is, because I just dislike the western cartoon stylization, but the style clearly doesn't have any problems with properly depicting women. If anything, the style idealizes women. Or at least it used to, I'm not sure what the company is up to now.