Teams & Riders Tao Geoghegan Hart discussion thread

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Where were you in the Simmons thread.
Ah, but Simmons wasn't denied a right to make a statement as he deemed fit, rather it just got him in trouble with his employer. Now we can debate the justice of that as much as we can assess the merits of his gesture. At the private level of employer/employee relationship, however, the two are of course inextricably connected. Since many took umbrage with Simmon's response as being racist (in a time of increasing intolerance towards racism and in which a crime is aggravated by racist motives), unavoidably the cyclist's employer took an aversive messure to diminish the negative publicity. Simmons, as a Trump supporter responding to the opposition (which is political), simply chose the most offensive icon imaginable, thus exposing himself to the public scrutiny inherent to democracy. And if his gesture was done with complete innocence as he claims, devoid of any degrading correlations or unaware that they could be assumed (although who can really believe that?), then his lack of shrewdness alone inevitably came with a price. Unfortunately, and Simmons learnt this the hard way, being able to say what you want doesn't come without burdens.

By contrast, Tao's statement against racism is being attacked as dishonourable and reprobate by some who would rather he keep his views to himself (why, though, is anyone's guess and the suspicions of racism it inevitably entails). Yet those who defend Simmons proclaim his right to freedom of speach (the same one they would deny Tao), even when that was never up for question. The double-standard is mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Volderke
So denying (the extent of) biological sex differences should be suppressed?
going down the slippery slope: no :)
But you (or better and less personal: anyone expressing certain viewpoints on biological sex differences) with the clear intention to discriminate / divide / intolerate / strive for an ideologic agenda / whatever viewpoint nothing to do with the pure biology ...
shouldn't deserve any platform other that your own streetsign at a crossroad, and in some cases, should be even forbidden if said expression is unlawful.
 
By contrast, Tao's statement against racism is being attacked as dishonourable and reprobate by some who would rather he keep his views to himself (why, though, is anyones guess and the suspicions of racism it inevitably produces). Yet those who defend Simmons proclaim his right to freedom of speach (the same one they would deny Tao), even when that was never up for question. The double-standard is mindboggling.
Arguably anti-racism isn't political whereas racism is. That sounds contradictory, but when you think about it, just being opposed to people being jerks isn't the same as being a jerk.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Metier
But you (or better and less personal: anyone expressing certain viewpoints on biological sex differences) with the clear intention to discriminate / divide / intolerate / strive for an ideologic agenda / whatever viewpoint nothing to do with the pure biology ... shouldn't deserve any platform
The hardest social constructivist certainly fit that bill. Don't know why they shouldn't be suppressed by your standards.
 
You realise that you post in a forum where political discussion is not allowed and where the politics forum was shut down yet here you are complaining about censorship. My issue is that if people are to be allowed to post political viewpoints, there should be no half-measures. Various viewpoints should be accepted or else that is censorship and totalitarianism...
Concerns over censorship are purely grounded in a democratic right to freedom of speach, bearing in mind a caveat; namely beware of any attempting to take access to a constitutional right as justification to repress or discriminate against other citizens or categories as I have put differently before. In addition, having a right to expressing one's political views, essential to a functioning democracy, doesn't come with a dispensation against being scrutinized, even vehemently attacked (within the robust confines of political debate), for one's positions. In other words, for good or bad, own them.

By contrast, what you are advocating is a willfully circumscribed narrowing of the debate iteslf, which establishes who can parcipate in it, under what circumstances, while obviously finding some postions incovenient and better left unsaid. As you have stated, once we let athletes talk "where does it stop and who can contol it?"
 
Reactions: Volderke
Arguably anti-racism isn't political whereas racism is. That sounds contradictory, but when you think about it, being opposed to people being just jerks isn't the same as being a jerk.
While you can't control people's views, racism has become unlawful in many states when it is a motive to discriminate, of a hate crime, political persecution or exclusion from the school or work environment. This is why at the level of public discourse (of "freedom of speach"), the one making racist statements does not have the same value as the one making anti-racist statements. They are not moral equivalents. But they are both definitely also political, in so far as entire policies have been devoted to sustaining one or the other in recent and not so recent times.
 
Last edited:
Biological sex as a spectrum.
AFAIK you have very manly men, very womanly women, very womanly men and very manly women, and everything in between, both from a pure biological POV as based on the way people feel about themselves.

I don't have any issue with that, and I hope no one has. I realize the practical real world issues (dressing rooms, women with very muscular bodies that could be described as manly bodies competing) can lead to discussions that are not easy. Is this more or less what you were referring to?
 
Sex (not gender) is a very well defined term in biology. All animals that sexually reproduce can be divided in classes of sex. There's no spectrum, you're either one or the other. No one is more man than another man. Just like no odd number is more odd than another odd number. Humans are animals first and foremost, and what is true for all animals is therefore also true for humans.

PS: That is not to discredit a more complex understanding of sex/gender (a triad of biological/psychological/social categories), but just that the other dimensions don't nullify our evolutionary formed biology.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Sex (not gender) is a very well defined term in biology. All animals that sexually reproduce can be divided in classes of sex. There's no spectrum, you're either one or the other. No one is more man than another man. Just like no odd number is more odd than another odd number. Humans are animals first and foremost, and what is true for all animals is therefore also true for humans.

PS: That is not to discredit a more complex understanding of sex/gender (a triad of biological/psychological/social categories), but just that the other dimensions don't nullify our evolutionary formed biology.
Nothing to disagree with here, although the issues at stake don't really pertain to biological parameters, so much as to a socio-cultural evolution that has forced legislators and academics of late to bear in mind the complexities of human self-awareness. Evolutionary biology has uniquely equiped humans to have perceptions about themselves that evidently transcend the narrowly scientific definition of sex among all animals. One's sex is thus not necessarily in each case a limiting definition of one's person, according to the traditional gender roles.
 
Last edited:
Mod hat on:


Ok, any political discussion needs to stop. We'll be looking careful to see if there are users who insist on continuing this across multiple threads after several warnings. We'll be kicking the question of whether the discussion of anti-racism/racism is political or not to the admins and they can decide on that one. Freedom of speech discussions in their fundamental form are clearly political and should not be discussed here. I'll also point out that this is the TGH thread. Please also stop the off-topic discussions.

Cheers,

KB.
 
So this lad decided, along with his team to withdraw from the race and get his head checked out as he felt dizzy after the fall today. Why is it when Bennet crashed the other day and was wobbling all over the pavement after smashing his helmet, he was allowed to carry on after saying he was ok, when obviously he was not. Is it going to take someone to have a serious crash after an head injury for something to be done? Luckily Bennet seemed to recover ok and get through the stage.
 
So this lad decided, along with his team to withdraw from the race and get his head checked out as he felt dizzy after the fall today. Why is it when Bennet crashed the other day and was wobbling all over the pavement after smashing his helmet, he was allowed to carry on after saying he was ok, when obviously he was not. Is it going to take someone to have a serious crash after an head injury for something to be done? Luckily Bennet seemed to recover ok and get through the stage.
Well there are still issues that haven't been addressed for safety that you'd have thought would have been by now. We can hope, but who knows.
 
Reactions: wheresmybrakes
So this lad decided, along with his team to withdraw from the race and get his head checked out as he felt dizzy after the fall today. Why is it when Bennet crashed the other day and was wobbling all over the pavement after smashing his helmet, he was allowed to carry on after saying he was ok, when obviously he was not. Is it going to take someone to have a serious crash after an head injury for something to be done?
Simple answer: yes.
Until then it will be up to teams. Ineos made the right call.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS