Ok, can we please stop trying to sneak 2000s birth years into eras that are almost exclusively mid90s oriented? its getting annoying

I've noticed this a lot, but I recently saw a post comparing "zillennials" and "early Genz," which I couldn't help but roll my eyes at. The "zillennial" half featured things like:

Razor scooters(2000)

Yu-gi-oh(2002)

GBA:SP(2003)

PS2(2000-2006)

EZ squirts(2000-2005)

And other things that were primarily popular between 2000-2005 with zillennials being [1994-2000], which doesn't even make sense. 1993-1996/7 babies are a better representation of people who got the most out of that era as kids and should ultimately be the face of it. If you were born in 2000, or even 1998/1999, you would actually qualify for very little on that list. Yeah, maybe you have some experience with the things listed, but you weren't the original demographic of children they were marketed to on day one and were barely children during their peak. Most of you are gonna get mad, call me a "gatekeeper," and start spouting off about your lower socioeconomic status and older siblings, but none of that stuff matters. This is a generation forum(supposedly) so when we have these discussions about who grew up with what, it should be implicitly implied that the original target demographic should be the focus, not people who got them as hand-me-downs or because they were poor. I know a lot of you want to come off as more "old school," and are desperately trying to prove that your upbringing was the same or at least marginally similar to early-mid90s babies, but can we stop using these ridiculous ranges that include people who were just barely kids when these things were at the height of their popularity?

EDIT: And like, clockwork, here come the "I was poor" comments, lol. Typical.