Mohammed Hijab – Can Gender Identity Pronouns Lead to Legal Pedophilia_

			Same age, right? So if 214 year olds and your nine, have sexual * with each other is not
seen as *. But what if now you have a year 12 or 13, like an 18 year old, he wants to
identify as a 14 year old, comes into school has a 14 year old girlfriend 13 year now. Now he's
identified the teachers have accepted the identification. So to what extent now does is there a
tension between the law of consent and the self identification of this person? So are you telling me
now because this is the application of this very important, you're saying? Because they will say no,
this is an exception, we're not going to allow him to identify the younger age. But if that's the
		

			case, what you're saying is that the state knows best how to identify you
		

			in a legal way.
		

			that defies the whole reason. So what you're saying to me is, I would argue that gender is okay,
because it doesn't have any consequences on the economy on the political and social environment.
Because it doesn't harm anyone in in.
		

			Sometimes it does, right, right. No, no, yes. Yes. Yeah, exactly. We talked about we talked about
100%. But then in the case of but then in the case of age, where you see okay, *, that's
not child's rights. disabled. Can I can I identify as a disabled person if I'm not disabled? Am I
entitled to Disability Living Allowance? Yeah, exactly. No, honestly. I mean, where does it end?
Because if I say I'm disabled, the doctor says, No, you're not disabled. But the doctor has given me
a biological rendering. He's given me a scientific conclusion. But I'm a postmodernist, I don't
believe in science. to this extent, I believe my postmodern mystic, identification of myself
		

			supersedes your biological determinism, therefore, I will identify you, I'm gonna say, as well, as
disabled, I'm blind, give me a give me a motability vehicle, give me 300 400 pounds a month, please.
Because I'm blind, or I'm, I'm, you know, whatever it may be, and so on. Right. So where does it
end? Because if the states are saying, No, you can't identify as disabled because you require some
		

			biological scientific evidence for that. You can't identify as 14, because you require a biological
side, then there's a contradiction because you can't say that, but then you can say you can identify
as a man because we disregard the biology that. So
		

			yeah, if it's x, y is x, y.
		

			x, y.
		

			is x, y is x is no, no, no. Well, he already did.
		

			If it's x, y is x, y, if it's x, x is x x, that's that's a chromosome you can't change that's
biologically determined. But the outcomes can be changed and manipulated. And identification of the
self can be superseded in that instance. But when it comes to age and disability and race, in some
cases, some would argue that's not the case. That's why the left wing postmodernist has to really
reassess their ontology really, but some people say that they are doing it with an end thing to
actually try and help promote, like you said, heterosexuals.
		

			Trying to do it, yeah, they're trying to latch themselves on to the LGBT movement, so they can be
the pee on the end.
		

			To make it a normal thing.
		

			And it's part of the problem that I'll be honest with you the problem, there was there was a
problem. And the problem is that the state itself doesn't have any rigid biological way of defining
a child, it doesn't have that and different states have different identifications is true. But the
point is, if it has set something, in this case, is the age of 16. Yeah, if that's the arbitrary
subjective, well, it's a social legalistic thing, but they put it 16 is the age of consent, then it
has to be consistent. And now if you also say you have a free right to identify yourself, then
surely that could not mean that there are any exceptions whatsoever, because that will, that will
		

			actually,
		

			it defeats the purpose of self identification with whoever you want. So homeless 16 year olds don't
want to identify as 1514 1312
		

			Yeah, then I can do I should be able to do that.
		

			Well, we're kind of
		

			just like, meat itself up this little Oh, 100% I absolutely agree with that phrase, because it will
eat itself up. The reason why it is self up is because human beings require certainty. That's one of
the the things that can be a language provides a kind of communicative fulfills of communicative
functionality, right? And if you take that communicative functionality out of language, the language
becomes worthless. So as you can have, I mean, these people are literally living a life of delusion.
A lot of them are deluded, because why is delusion, a delusion? Why is delusion? Someone says I'm,
I'm 55 years old, but actually I'm 17 or I'm actually I'm 30
		

			15 isn't that delusion? Yeah.
		

			Going on 17 but that's just because I feel like I'm young.
		

			We agree
		

			to manipulate much more within
		

			the human anatomy, so who knows where we're gonna be what we're gonna be, medically, we're gonna
medically become genetic in the future. So maybe new pronouns are gonna need to be, you know, for
people.
		

			I think this is a general what is a symptomatic of this whole gender thing is an extension of third
wave feminism. Okay. Now, third wave feminism differs in complexion, and intellectual argumentation
from second wave feminism. And so much as a lot of third wave feminists argued that * is a social
construction. Now, secondly, feminists like before excetera argued that gender was a social
construction, which is much easier argumentation to make, but to argue that * is, once again, it
defeats the purpose because as many of I think Judith Butler is one of them. But many of other third
wave feminists say that the penis is a social construction, right? The * is a sword. So if
		

			that's the case, if you believe that * is a social construction, then where do we stop in our
understanding of things or social constructions? We're gonna say that * is the culture because
that raises a social construction ethnicity is a social construction, nationality is a social
construction antiquity, the social construction? No, don't tell me that you can't do that.
		

			You know, goes on area. But you know, you know, the argument of social construction is problematic
on two levels. Number one, Laci Green for the sake of argument that * is a social construction.
		

			Or let's agree that masculinity is a social construction. Right? Now, it's a genetic fallacy to say
just because something is a social construction, it means it's false. There are many social
constructions which are true, right? It doesn't mean that because something is socially constructed,
that's where the origin of the idea is, that must mean that the idea is false. That's a genetic
fallacy, right? Because just because something is socially, it doesn't mean number one is completely
disparate with intuitive intuitionism something could be a social construction as a result of a
combined intuitive experience of collected peoples in a given place. So in other words, people feel
		

			something naturally. And then that natural collection of feelings, subjective experiences, combines
into what is then referred to social construction. But even so you can say that some things which
are intuitive, might be problematic. So someone might have
		

			aggressive, aggressive urges, which might lead them to murder. Now, that's not a social construction
bias, according to society, something which is wrong, right to be in the way that they kill people.
could be anybody social construction based around culture, yes, in some ways, sexuality, you know, a
woman might find it attractive, another culture man might find that
		

			just because something is a social construction doesn't mean is wrong, number one. Number two, even
if you can't prove that what that person is saying is not a social construction. So with a third
wave feminist, why would ask us? How do you know what you're saying is not a social construction?
How can you prove that what you're saying is not a social construct with the BBC not? Not, for
example,
		

			feminist social construction, but not other people's
		

			perspective of social construction on yours. I think that the BBC is a little bit more. I mean, I
don't know, I can't comment on the BBC, because I haven't done a data analysis. Right. But I think
that the the issue is
		

			that there's a lot of mainstream organizations want to prove their liberal credentials, they want to
prove that they're as inclusive as possible, as tolerant as possible, and so on. And they are open
to new ideas and openness and these things, but what the argument we're making today is that that
has to have parameters. All right. And if those parameters are not clearly defined, then you're
gonna find yourself in circular arguments, and you're never gonna get to the bottom of anything.
		

			Children, they knew that children need like they need to know like boundaries, and you're
		

			gonna be confused.
		

			They won't get confused.
		

			show a certain perspective on the BBC. They'll promote you know, feminism and feminist feminism.
They say women got the right to vote in 1918. Yes, especially the central women got the right to
vote. A large percentage of men did too, because many men who didn't own the land or black people,
black people,
		

			but they don't even men, just white men in their own societies are not the workers or workers
something a voting act or something like that was in the mid 18th
		

			and 19th century 1800 this is definitely not
		

			the men you
		

			I think you had different things for exam 1918 women over the age of 30 could vote. It was it was I
think in 1930, something that woman over the age of 18 could vote. So there was an men, white men,
like you said, there were certain men that were excluded from voting in a 19th century basketball
discussion. And black people in America couldn't vote. There was all these things going on.
		

			Let's be honest, it wasn't what is voting now is first past the post system, you have two choices,
frankly, I mean, what kind of a choice
		

			Anyway,
		

			you got two choices. For the most part, the best you can do is probably get a local MP to have the
part you like in one area, but you know, you're not gonna get them in government. And that shows you
the restrictive nature of so called democracy you got two choices. And they both and David Cameron's
worth fighting for middle ground so I mean, the center
		

			you know, British politics is folks on the ground, they will fight for it. And you got two choices
between blue and red coming. Let's these these jargons don't faze me because I know that democracy
and liberalism in implementation when you actually look at them with a you know, with an eye with a
critical eye, you start realizing these flaws and its problems. I need to go
		

			Can I do
		

			that? No, no. Can we
		

			can we can we can we quickly do Can I just borrow usually?
		

			Yeah, you as well. Usually I knew I knew I knew. I'm gonna do a video yeah.