I don't know how you think Henry Cavill had LL but it's obvious he didn't. The guy has top tier genetics in a lot of categories and his proportions still look fine even with those variations in proportions. I'm one of the people who also thinks proportions matter, but I'm also one of the people who know there are still deviations from the average. This is very visible from people who are just taller, just literally look at a lot of basketball players like Svi Mykhailuk who has visibly shorter wingspan, and also the opposite side of the spectrum like Kevin Durant.
For taller people, those proportions look less weird because, for one thing, they naturally grew into it and everything else that followed. The other is that, studies did show that in most cases, in terms of aesthetics, what mattered the most was total Leg:Body ratio, where males going slightly above the average .50~.52 was deemed attractive, and as long as it's not excessively over that average it will look good, followed by the height:wingspan ratio, and the tibia:femur ratio as being the least important.
But why is there that discussion about the tibias to femurs? Well because if we're just strictly speaking about the legs, the tibias being long is attractive, but in terms of total proportions, just having long legs is already attractive. But this is also where wingspan that goes in the middle matter, if your arms look short af and doesn't even reach comfortably to your pants pockets with a slight bend, then you just fked up and overlengthened, because that is unnatural and rarely people have that unless you have an actual defect.
In the end what do you suggest for someone who is 5'5 and is going to lengthen both segments consecutively? 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm in femurs is the lowest one should when doing both segments IMO. How much would you push above those figures? Would you go all in for solid 5'10 total height? Or would you prefer 4 cm in tibia and 5 cm femurs or 4.5 cm tibia and 6.5 cm femurs route for safety and better proportions?
Unless you're really into tibias, and if you don't already have long femurs. You can just plainly start off with femurs if you think you're going two surgeries anyways. At the very least once you reach 5~6cm with them and still think you have height dysphoria, you can decide after that if you still want to max out just femur, or be done and go for a second surgery, or just plainly max out on both. Otherwise go the other way around if you already have a very low tibia:femur ratio.
Personally I already have long tibias, even approx mock-ups and measurements show if I lengthen tibias to even slighly above 2 inches, it would seem it would go way over 1 and would be longer than my femurs. And for mobility and plausible joint issues, that's not ideal plus having tibias longer than femurs IS unnatural, and is actually shown possible links to early arthrtitis. Tibias should always be naturally shorter than femurs, just at times it will have a high tibia:femur ratio. That's why I prefer going femurs first over tibias.
At the end, as long as you don't have excessively well over or below averages for proportions, rarely people will notice. People who already have those naturally get away with it because every other ratios they have would have followed and we know there are more to proportions in the body than just things relating to legs and height.
