> Human dimensions are closer to a normal distribution
Human height is (it's the textbook example of a real, intuitive_that is, using the normal linear scale—physical measure that is a good fit for a normal distribution) plenty of other human dimensions are not.
> Human height should be a negative binomial distribution, since human height can't be negative.
That's a sensible analytical speculation, but it empirically fits very well with a normal distribution.
The fact that zero is, for adult male height (the typical cited example for fitting a nor Al distribution, though adult female height also works), around 17 standard deviations below the mean helps: I won't bother to calculate how little should be below that, since below 7σ in a normal distribution is 1/780 billion.
Human height is (it's the textbook example of a real, intuitive_that is, using the normal linear scale—physical measure that is a good fit for a normal distribution) plenty of other human dimensions are not.