Ctdonath was claiming that many people notice that a shirt can be turned inside-out through the main hole at the bottom, or a glove through the wrist hole. Far fewer people try turning a shirt inside-out through a sleeve or neck hole, or a pair of pants through a rip in the knee. They then abstract the wrong way from this experience, inventing the idea that the size of the hole is important (or maybe just that the “main” hole is special).

I’m not sure how prevalent these misconceptions are. It would be interesting to do surveys of the general public to see what kinds of mental models people have here.

If you actually tried to turn a pair of pants inside out through a rip in the knee, the rip might get bigger. In fact, it almost certainly would. Likewise for turning a sweater inside-out through the neck hole, it would stretch it out a bit. Yes, it's mathematically possible but there are real reasons people don't treat their clothes that way even if they know they can.

It's not because you're a non-native speaker - that comment doesn't make sense.

The comment is basically saying that the size of a hole in a surface is irrelevant, but people incorrectly assume it matters.

That's what I got from it as well; however it did seem needlessly verbose.

karamazov's comment was about the first line, which wasn't.

His prompted me to add the ETA, which is verbose to be clear and to address more than just clothing reversal.