California gurls denial consists of claims that the existence of gurls in California--usually referred to as "fine, fresh, fierce"--do not occur at all, or that they do not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following: that once you party with them, you'll be falling in love; that the boys break their necks trying to creep a little sneak peek and that Jeeps are being driven by freaky women with sand in their stilettos.
California gurls deniers generally do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term "West Coast female revisionism" instead. Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate California gurl deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.The methodologies of gurl deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary, such as the scientific accuracy of being "on lock."
Most California gurl denial claims imply, or openly state, that the California gurls are a hoax arising out of a deliberate conspiracy to advance the interest of Daisy Dukes and bikinis (on top) at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, California gurl denial is generally considered to be an a conspiracy theory on behalf of an underground cabal of haters, who are probably fat and pale.
However, legitimate historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information, such as whether it is possible for a person to be so hot that she melts a Popsicle simply by proximity.