The new "social no-no", soon to be known as the trendiest crime against humans is, ironically, de-humanising.

According to an expert ... or should that be a "non-gender specific person of self-proclaimed knowledge in a particular subject" ... giving people such a broad label is dehumanising and therefore contributes to our "biased" view and treatment of them.

Seeing them, almost, as objects rather than fellow human beings.

The example given was "cyclists" and the judgement and road rage they endure because of it.


The article I read was asking that we refrain from using the term "cyclist" and instead refer to them as people who ride bikes.

Isn't bike, like cycle, just another shorter reference for an identical object?

Call me a drongo but how can one abbreviation of the same word be preferable to the other?

I'm confused. Is the "front" part of the word somehow more humane and acceptable than the "rear" of it? Is it better to be a dick/boob than an arse?

What does it spell for the rest of our commonly used vocabulary/nouns - assuming, will it even be deemed legal to continue using them in such an over-sensitive time and culture?.

If cyclist is dehumanising, what then is motorist, racist, extremist or terrorist?

These days, it appears, all you have to do is add the letters "ist" or "phobia" to something and you instantly have the makings of a hate crime.

And once we have managed to dispense with the "ists" and the "phobias". what the hell is next - the "ans" as in vegetarians (self-righteous, rabbit food eating, meat haters), octogenarians (crusty old, past their prime, redundant fossils) or politicians (grossly overpaid, silver-tongued, self-seeking, bold-faced liars) - the "ers"?


Knock me down with a feather ... or should that be a "pluckable, thick, hair-like growth, most commonly found on birds" (winged critters, best served stuffed or deep fried by a celebrity chef or a, reportedly racist, Colonel).

Meat eaters, influencers, suckers, mindless followers, attention seekers ... where does it end?

Well, pluck my G-String, aka a "flimsy elastic device that barely covers one's nether regions" and call me a realist (a person who can smell BS from a far greater distance than the gap between rich and poor).

My pet, Pumpkin, is a cat ... but what is she really?

An enslaved, domesticated, lesser life, or vegetable, as her name suggests, with a reputed nine lives, four paws, whiskers and sharp claws?

You have to be kidding me.

If we choose to adopt this irrational way of thinking we may as well put an end to our miserable existence now.

Perhaps we could argue the point with "our right to die" on the basis of undue suffering, persecution and bullying, our only treatment, medical marijuana.

Because we're political, hypocritical, fanatical and radical ... until the "cals" become de-humanisers too!

And this, for me, is just the logical (sensible, reasoned and obvious) argument.

Can you possibly imagine commentating a Tour de France or Olympic Game event without the word cyclist, a moniker often used to describe to "an arrogant dork, perched upon a two-wheeled device, commonly guilty of riding two and three abreast, frequently dressed in unflattering, clingy attire and hogging more than their fair share of the road?"

Yeah, the term cyclist is so much more demeaning and de-humanising - I can't possibly think why some have become the target of road rage, as many are forced to cross the centre line to avoid them.

Well, inflate my undies with a bike pump and call me a blimp.

At least I'm not contributing to the road toll #roadtroll, #cyc-lops, #one-eyed.
Making something wrong to be seen as morally right - is this really how desperate we have become?

Pedalled, cycled and re-cycled feedback welcome: