this goes for all girls apart from terfs ( a terf is a “feminist” that believes trans girls are not really girls)

To put it in terms you’d understand, Radfem women are women.

But as an addition to this post the whole “she is beautiful and so am I” notion is as vapid as they come because it insinuates that if a woman is not beautiful then she is not worth standing for, or alternatively places undue significance on the ideal of beauty itself.

Put simply, the notion of beauty shouldn’t be important or really commented upon because too much significance is already placed upon the “feminine quality” of beauty.

A better notion would be “I stand with women and girls, not against them. She is important and so am I.”

2)

You say trans women are women. But if they were women, why would they need to be trans? You already differentiate between the idea of trans women and women, thus putting a divide between them in your mind. By your standards the very notion of this divide is transphobic. So you yourself cannot deny there is a difference between a trans woman and a woman. Otherwise you would not need to so circularly state “trans women are women” because also by your standards you are stating “women are women” whilst still drawing a line between two apparant “types” of women whilst you simultaneously try to deny that there is a clear line.

So, how do you justify the statement “trans women are women” then? 

What makes them women?

What makes them different from women that you need to put them into their own category still?