It gets even more absurd when you bring in external factors like clothing or makeup. If you argue that wearing women’s clothing or putting on makeup makes someone a girl, then you’re essentially saying that these external things define what it means to be a woman. But that’s nonsense. Nobody is born wearing women’s clothes or with makeup on. A girl is a girl, regardless of what she wears or how she presents herself. If clothing or makeup were what made someone a woman, our entire understanding of identity would be shallow and interchangeable.

Your argument has a fundamental flaw: If identity is truly an internal, unchangeable fact, then why do you need external or chemical interventions to “prove” it? And if external things like clothing or hormones are required, then the claim that identity was clear and undeniable from the start is clearly false.

If you claim that someone who identifies as a girl is already a girl, then why are hormones or surgeries necessary to “correct” it? That doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying that this person is already what they claim to be. If that’s true, then nothing should need to be changed, right? Because according to your logic, they are already a girl, regardless of physical characteristics.

But if you argue that hormones or surgeries are necessary to affirm this, you’re admitting that they weren’t actually a girl to begin with. You’re trying to change something through chemical or physical means that, according to your own logic, shouldn’t require any changes. This directly contradicts your original claim. Either someone already is what they say they are, or they’re not and need to become it

+rep skibidi gyatt ohio rizz

-rep fat gaye muslim succ poopa haha owned ah yes le 'lithuanian xddd' cope

-rep cheater

╭━━━╮╭━━━╮┈┏┓╭━━━╮
┗━━╮┃┃╭━╮┃┏╯┃┗━━╮┃
╭━━╯┃┃┃┈┃┃┗┓┃╭━━╯┃
┃╭━━╯┃┃┈┃┃┈┃┃┃╭━━╯
┃┗━━┓┃╰━╯┃┈┃┃┃┗━━┓
┗━━━┛╰━━━╯┈┗┛┗━━━┛