Why does sizeof a reference type give you the sizeof the type?

Question

According to the standard, in [expr.sizeof] (5.3.3.2) we get:

When applied to a reference or a reference type, the result is the size of the reference

Answer 1

The choice is somewhat arbitrary, and trying to fully justify either option will lead to circular metaphysical arguments.

The intent of a reference is to be (an alias for) the object itself; under that reasoning it makes sense for them both to have the same size (and address), and that is what the language specifies.

The abstraction is leaky - sometimes a reference has its own storage, separate from the object - leading to anomolies like those you point out. But we have pointers for when we need to deal with a "reference" as a separate entity to the object.