Mohammed Hijab – Segregating Black and White Sprinters Due to Black Advantage
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the physical and psychological differences between men and women in relation to their bodies, including the need for segregation in sports such as boxing and race. They emphasize the need for an equality of opportunity and the importance of avoiding segregation in certain sports, such as race. The speakers also mention the need for an equality of opportunity and the need for no exception to the principles of feminism.
AI: Summary ©
Examining especially second way feministic discourse is clear the premises.
The premises, there are physical differences. Simone de Beauvoir makes that candidly clear. There are physical differences between men and women, we know them.
We're not ignorant to them. She even mentions emotional differences. In her book, the second *, and her chapter on biology, she says, even biological differences, anatomical differences, physiological differences, psychological differences, emotional differences. But the argument goes as follows despite those differences, there should be equality.
Does that make sense so far? So a second wave feminists would say, despite those differences, there should be equality afforded what kind of equality, political equality, social equality, economic equality.
This is pretty much in a nutshell, what the argument is, obviously, one could justifiably ask, what's the proof of that? What's the evidence for that? Why should that be the case? How is that entailment made?
from first principles? First of suppose How can you justify that?
And that's really not a question that there isn't the answer to, frankly, or that there is any formula given for us on how to answer those questions.
However,
and this is moving on now to the second part of the lecture, which I want to spend a little bit of time on.
Are we consistent?
Or feminist consistent?
In particular, second wave feminists, are they consistent in the application of those principles? Now, there are three things three life examples I want to give you.
To show you how problematic these assumptions are for feminists. The first one relates and I'm sure many of you might have been exposed to this.
It's a big thing on the news. Now Actually, that's what I'm bringing up is the idea of transgendered sports. Now, I'm not sure if this is kind of spill over to Malaysia.
But this is certainly something a hot topic in the West in America in the UK, Western Europe. The question is, say for instance, you have someone who identifies and who is identified biologically, as a man, they do a gender reassignment surgery, and they become
self identified as a woman.
Okay, so they do a gender reassignment surgery, and they become self identified as a woman.
Can they participate in sports with women? Now, second wave feminists, on the whole seem averse to the idea. Now you can't make a generalization with anything. But big time second wave feminists like Germaine Greer, who wrote the book in 1971, the female Eunuch, she's like one of the founding
mothers of feminism.
And she, in an interview, she completely rejected the idea. And guess what she invoked?
She invoked anatomical and biological advantage. Wait a minute.
Hold on now.
Hold on. Now.
Let me hear the argument. So the argument goes, since the person and this is a very sensical argument to me, as a non feminist, right? The argument goes, since men have anatomical, biological advantages, hormonal advantages, and even having gone through that process.
And then the assignment, the gender reassignment happens, if they now compete with women, it will give them an unfair advantage, and it will give them an entitled over privileged position in that context. Wait a minute. This is important now.
I thought you said * was a or not * because that's a third wave construct. Some say that * is a social construct. Judith Butler hinted to this in her book, gender troubles 1990 but not this. Some do say that.
I thought you said gender was a social construct.
No.
And you know, it becomes even more problematic.
You don't want it becomes more problematic when we start to see.
So the question is now should there be an equality of opportunity
for men and
In,
in certain sports,
should we? Or should we segregate and separate them?
You know, like segregation, but you have it in sports. But no, it's justified for anatomical and biological reasons. So you're saying that on biological and anatomical grounds, you can justify separation?
Wait, hold on now, but men will be given an advantage.
Why don't you make that argument in all contexts of categories? For instance, if you look at the 100, meter dash,
and I made this argument before, I'm okay, again, the 100 meter sprints the last 100 years? I don't know of one white man, who's one that
no, I don't know. I don't know if one white man has one that is dominated by black people, not only just black people, West Africans, and Jamaicans
should we separate the blacks from the whites?
Now, if you say, we shouldn't separate the blacks and the whites, you're contradicting yourself, you know why? Because you said, In cases where there is biological and anatomical advantages, for one category of person, over another category of person, there should be separation. So why should that be the case? Only for gender? why shouldn't it also be the case for race? Because you be called racist? This is selective invocation.
You see, they are not even consistent with their principles.
As Africans are very good at long distance, you know, we have someone called Mo Farah, very good runner, you know,
they have an advantage is Africans bodily, they have a bodily advantage. Why people have an advantage in something swimming. And I don't want to be controversial, but I've never seen a black man when that swimming race I was at Michael Phelps. How many times you want to
buy we're going to separate the blacks from the whites? We're not going to separate the blacks and the whites. So what kind of equality Do you wanna? So some feminists would say we want equality of opportunity. And some would actually say we want equality of outcome.
All right, so yeah, someone's saying, We want an equality of opportunity.
But almost all feminists would say that, in fact. So why don't you have an equality of opportunity? In schools?
Why don't we arrange parameters, that mean that people have the same weights, whether there are men and women, they go together?
in competitions?
We can do that. It's not difficult. It's not difficult.
in boxing, for example, you don't think there's 75 kilogram women? That's the most popular category for men. Let's bring them together. Fight. You want equality of opportunity? No, but that's advantage, man. But
he said the anatomical thing, you see is really problematic. You have segregation, acquiesced segregation.
In some stress, well, the feminists we need.
We need to stand against this. Seriously, if you're, if you're principally averse to a biological anatomical argument, arrange parameters, which does not discriminate on gender in the field of sports. But they will never do that. Because it's not about equality. It's about entitlement.
It's about where can we find the advantages? That's the problem.
And this case becomes more exacerbated. When we look at war.
We need to rectify the social ills and problems
of the past patriarchal society.
And we need to have equality of opportunity.
And also spheres in all industries, political, social, and economic. There should be absolutely no exception to that, but what
that entails death that entails injury.
We don't really know about that one.
I've never actually come across
a movement
that aims to rectify a historic
accumulation
of gender discrimination against men in the field of war.
Almost every military, in every country in the world in all of history has been male dominated men have died. Now, if we're being honest, we should say that's a severe matriarchy. You're forced men to be society, inclined or forced to kill themselves and fight themselves.
So for the protection of the country, so on feminism, if there's an equality of opportunity, we should address that historic discrimination. And we should look at all the wars that men was dominating the armies in them. And we should have female only conscription
and draft forcing the women to fight for the men for at least the amount of time that would equalize the historic imbalance. No, but brother
about the dangerous jobs
which have been flooded
by males men.
Is that patriarchy? Or is that actually a matriarchy? What should we call that men have felt the need to go to
mining jobs.
There are all kinds of dangerous work
for the most part. So if we're going to go with the equality first.
to rectify that. The problem is guys, it's just too selective. You choose when to be absolutely equal, and you choose your expression.
This is the problem.
So these are some clever examples of inconsistencies, even using the first principles of feminism, even using exactly what they're talking about.