Writer. Ultra-endurance athlete and Coach. Restless. I dreadfully lack the personality to be popular on social media.
Colorado Springs, CO
Joined November 2021
- Tweets808
- Following841
- Followers181
- Likes16.7K
Tanya retweeted
Although I’d have worded it a bit differently, Wesley’s post is 100% correct.
My guiding premise over these past years has been that the trans issue never was just—or even primarily—about people who identify as transgender.
It’s a symbolic, high-visibility proxy debate over issues and fault lines at the heart of contemporary liberal democracies: the nature and limits of parental authority; the role of schools in the moral and cultural education of youth; the norms and expectations that guide the professional class; the meaning of expertise and the basis for its demand for deference; freedom of speech and the limits of social and governmental control; the mutually correcting role of science and common sense; and so much more.
Failure to understand these deeper issues is what leads to misunderstanding of why people of all political and ideological persuasions oppose “gender identity.” Reduction of that skepticism to “hate” or “prejudice”—which may exist in some quarters!—guarantees a continuation of culture war.
Framing these debates as a debate over the fate of transgender people is therefore misleading, and not a bit self-serving. Of course they are implicated, and their rights ought to factor in to public debates just like everyone else’s. But the assumption that the debate is all about how a society accommodates a discrete minority is, at best, superficial.
Trans women in women's sports is a top tier issue for humanity because it's a proxy for the following questions:
-- Are we liberal society? (Or are we a progressive authoritarian society?)
-- Are we a pluralistic society? (Or are we social justice theocracy?)
-- Are we a democratic society? (Or are we governed by the unrepresentative consensus of a tiny, delusional elite?)
-- Are we a reason-based society? (Or are we a cargo cult that worships idols?)
-- Are we a reality-based society? (Or do we treat falsehoods as truths when told by people in power that it is virtuous to do so?)
-- Can we put a stop to obvious insanity? (Or are we in the thrall of ridiculous dogmas that no one can dispute because a powerful lobby calls it virtuous to clap along to absurdities and cruelties that destroy fairness?)
I don’t think it’s beneficial to openly state dislike of young children. While one might claim it’s a relief to know others feel the same way, I think it actually facilitates the apprehension about having kids and promotes more self-centered behavior.
It’s fine to not prefer the infant years, but there IS something about it that questions how maternal the mother is in a way that really matters. Generously offering young children affection and time matters. Who cares if it’s boring? It doesn’t last very long.
I happen to love the toddler stage. It’s hard because they’re so busy, but it’s just constant amusement and laughter. It is also foundational to my relationships with my children. To know them so well and have invested so much time in their development provides a certain continuity that I would miss if I only started engaging later on. The stories I get to tell them are cherished by us both and, even as teenagers, they delight in knowing I was there to experience them, irrespective of how hard or boring it was.
People are big mad at this... but why?
She said she'd happily be with her children all day at 5+. She just finds the very young phase tedious.
I merely watched 2 toddlers for a weekend & was like omg 😂 I got 0 space. They followed me into the bathroom!
And I quite *like* toddlers. But would I be a good primary caregiver of toddlers? Nah. I could maybe do one, as I loved babysitting my little brother.
It's completely normalized for men to feel this way, to the point many don't bat an eye if a guy struggles to do childcare for even brief spells while his wife isn't present. But a woman admits she's not good at it & people get weirded out.
If we want people to become parents, there has to be room to acknowledge that not everyone wants to do the all-day aspect of it. It IS incredibly isolating to many to be home with young kids all day. Others don't mind it. We don't need to require women to pretend to love things they don't to become parents.
I'm even reminded of that toddler who drowned because the dad was home alone & he was more focused on sports betting/watching the game than the toddler. That's exactly what makes toddlers so tricky. They require constant supervision.
Many personality types just aren't well-suited to that, but for some reason we view women as a monolith who *should* be good at that, or at least suck it up & do it for... reasons.
Yet what do many women do? Outsource childcare. Because not every woman is great at the day-to-day. And that's ok!
I'd prefer the below set-up to a video I saw of a woman losing her mind because she was home with her baby all day. People of course hated on her too 🙄
Meanwhile men have always been given a pass to outsource the bulk of raising of their children to someone else, and no one tells those men they're unfit fathers!
Tanya retweeted
If this is true it is peak insanity.
Anyone can claim anything caused distress. You can receive an *unlimited fine* for someone claiming you caused them distress.
This post caused me distress. The poster should be fined out of existence.
Tanya retweeted
When I say that women lack the concept of an honorable enemy, this is what I’m talking about.
Obviously a lot of the Democrats’ new vindictiveness is Trump derangement, but the Great Feminization is part of the story, too.
Men understand that the other guy is a professional just like me, and we should have an open fight by fair rules and both go home at the end of the day.
For women, conflict isn’t over until the other side is gone and they never have to talk to them again.
Men believe in hierarchy, so a fight is about establishing dominance within the hierarchy and making the other guy subordinate.
Women don’t, everything is egalitarian and consensus-driven, so if you do get conflict, the only possible outcome is total exclusion from the group.
It makes sense that the Democratic Party is abandoning old-fashioned ideas about honorable conflict as it becomes more dominated by women.
ON UCHICAGO CAMPUS: U.S. Senator from Michigan Elissa Slotkin hopes planned political prosecutions of republican leaders will scare young conservatives from getting involved in politics.
@ElissaSlotkin
Tanya retweeted
The verdict is solely against his accuser and not the deep-pocketed institutions that fired him at the behest of the unvetted claims of his accuser. (Claims against MIT and the Whitehead Institute were both dismissed.)
That is to say that MIT and the Whitehouse Institute paid no penalty for their decisive role in what the jury in this trial judged to be a campaign of retribution by an ex that destroyed the career of a potential Nobel laureate, and the $6 million judgment is against someone with no capacity to pay.
A civil jury ruled in favor of ex-MIT scientist David Sabatini, who was accused by a younger colleague of inappropriate sexual conduct in his Cambridge research lab, and awarded him $6 million in damages. trib.al/s3v9VIX
ChatGPT said yes. Claude was hesitant but “not because [it] lacks a view,” then finally conceded to a “leans yes.” Gemini agreed there would be guaranteed attacks on Israel if Israel laid down arms, and there is generally genocidal intent toward them, but said because Israel has “more capability,” it is culpable of genocide. Grok was the only one I tested that gave an immediate “No.”
None of the other AIs adhered to the actual definition of “genocide” and instead substituted a proxy, which represent ideological capture.
I checked this and my version, on the highest available depth, gave the same answer. chatgpt.com/s/cx_6ad201b0822… I am cancelling my subscription. @sama @OpenAI @gdb
In my experience, it has been quite obvious when a man is interested in a hook-up or casual intimacy. I don’t think I’m particularly perceptive here. Most women can detect when a man is sincerely interested in a relationship. Repeated behaviors offer insight into what he’s interested in, and it is a willing woman who participates irrespective of all the signs showing he is noncommittal.
When there are more women than men available, women will conform to the sexual preferences of men as a way to compete. It will also happen if the information she receives from other women is that being disconnected from romance is another avenue to popularity and independence.
Consensual hookup culture often feels predatory to women because... it is. It preys on women's desire for monogamy and coupling and love, which many believe there's a chance of receiving even after casual sex. Frat bros around America are indebted to Alex Cooper for trying to convince so many women they can and should have sex like men. It's led to men having a lot more casual sex because women choose to have it. That norm is great for dudes, but women often end up feeling preyed upon and exploited because they experience sex differently and just can't — on average — have casual hookups so easily.
Cooper preyed on women to make millions by convincing them it was normal to see sex more like men see it. Men who mislead women into having casual sex by dangling the prospect of monogamy prey on women. It doesn't mean women are helpless! And it doesn't mean non-consensual sex is anything short of horrifying and criminal. It just means there's a predatory culture swirling around even consensual hookups too, and it's really dangerous for women.
It is assumed that gifted and talented kids won’t be harmed by grouping them with less able students. The thought is that they will still do well, assist other students, and even help bring up proficiency rates for their grade, which leads to more funding. Progressive policies can then feel better about prioritizing DEI.
But pacing an advanced kid doesn’t usually go well. They get bored and anxious, which can lead to being disruptive or daydreaming, missing out on opportunities for which they are cognitive candidates.
Non-white and non-Asian kids who would qualify to gifted programs miss out on an education that would continue to cultivate their talents and provide support they might not receive at home.
Parents who are invested will still push for services for their talented kids, meaning there will still be inequities.
When students demonstrate a higher ability and talent for sports, we do everything we can to develop their bodies and character to do well as they grow. We don’t hold them back because we see more tall kids in basketball and think it’s unfair to the kids who don’t possess the height. Kids notice who is smart and who is not as smart. It doesn’t mean they cannot be friends or won’t all find a place in life.
Feminists are far too inconsistent with their principles. They attacked Sydney Sweeney’s voluntary nude ad as harmful to women’s endeavors, while defending slutty gym clothes as empowerment and treating similar displays as agency when they fit progressive goals.
They are silent or dismissive about issues like forced female genital mutilation and child marriage.
It all runs through their intersectional power filter: pretty, white, successful women like Sweeney are treated as powerful, so their choices can be criticized as reinforcing patriarchy or capitalism. Women in non-Western or non-white contexts are treated as powerless; victims of external oppression.
The average girl wearing shorts that show off every curve of her labia at the gym is supposed to be empowered but only because she lacks power…
Whenever I hear someone say “appreciate you” or “‘preciate you,” they’re either non-white, and I pass it off as cultural variation, or if they are white, it gets interpreted as disingenuous and condescending or dismissive. The person saying it changes the interpretation due to expected or shared norms.
I suppose we all should have expected women to be defensive about what the revealing athletic wear. The women choosing to dress like that likely already harbor certain insecurities or vanities that expose more about their character than they’d prefer. Rather than admitting what motivates the choice, anger/denial runs cover in hopes of preserving the pretence/signal. I do wonder how many women might actually start to dress a little more modestly at gyms going forward, as they might be experiencing a bit of embarrassment underneath the defensiveness.
Tanya retweeted
My post about France went viral. Thousands of likes. Many Americans told me: "Democrats aren't socialists. America will never be France." I want to answer that seriously, step by step.
Start with a simple observation. Look at what has gotten cheaper in America over the last 25 years: TVs, phones, software, clothes, toys. Now look at what has exploded: college tuition, healthcare, childcare, housing.
What separates the two lists? The first lives in competitive markets. The second is exactly where government is most involved: subsidies, mandates, licensing, zoning, regulation.
College. Washington lends students almost unlimited money. Universities know the money will always come, so they raise tuition and hire more administrators. The student pays the bill for twenty years. More government money, higher prices.
Housing. Why can't a nurse buy a home in the city where she works? Not because of capitalism. Because of zoning laws, permits, environmental reviews, years of procedure to build a single building. The most expensive places to live in America are the places where it's hardest to build. When building is nearly illegal, prices explode.
Healthcare. The patient almost never sees the price. A third party pays, regulations limit who can compete, and costs climb year after year with no one able to say no.
So here is the trap. The problems you suffer from are not the failure of free markets. They are the places where the market has already been replaced by the state. And the solution you're being offered is more of the same.
That's the Trojan horse. It always works the same way. A real problem. A generous-sounding promise. A program that makes things worse. Then the failure of that program becomes the argument for the next one. People who lived under communism in Poland learned to recognize the lie and the mask the lie wears. The lie never presents itself as a lie. It presents itself as compassion.
In France we are at the end of that road. Debt we can never repay. Young people who can't afford a home. Our best people leaving. And every few years our cities burn. Nobody voted for this. They voted for one more generous promise, fifty years in a row.
If you're a Republican, share this with the Democrat in your life. Not to win an argument. To start a conversation.
If you're a Democrat, I'm not asking you to switch teams. I'm asking you to look at the pattern. Wherever the state took over, life became unaffordable. Don't fix the failures of government with more government.
Stay American. Ask for less state, not more.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
How people state they’d act does not always align with how they would act. If presented with the situation and not as much information (true or assumed), most people would shoot to preserve a human life.
If the incident has already occurred and we are able to cobble together what kind of character the person was, we begin to raise or decrease their value, changing what we believe is right.
A person willingly enters a tiger enclosure and approaches the tiger. The tiger begins mauling the person. You have a gun and the ability to take a clean shot at the tiger to save the person's life.
Q1: What do you do?
Q2: Do you identify as a Christian? (Yes/No)
36%Shoot | Yes
19%Shoot | No
18%Don't shoot | Yes
27%Don't shoot | No
7,219 votes • Final results Tanya retweeted
I watched a former Olympian say how much she had sacrificed to get where she wanted, it made me shout at the TV.
There is no sacrifice in doing what you want, it is a privilege. The sacrifice is shelving your personal ambitions for service to another.
I dress for function, although I have also been known to go to the gym wearing jeans. My goal is to get the work in, not attract men—which isn’t even a bad goal to have! But let’s be honest about why we dress the way we do. Some women want to be appreciated for their bodies and show off as well as work out, but it can be done without every curve showing and without pretending like you didn’t want the attention.
There comes a time when the incessant beating results in hostility. Young white men—a lot of whom have never even been granted any privileges or possessed any meaningful power—growing up being shut out from opportunity and told they are the origin of all inequality will eventually grow tired of the game. In their exhaustion, they may even begin to feel comfortable expressing their anger in the ways we’ve expected them—and they’ve complied!—to restrain. Turns out, people don’t really like being treated unfairly when they were never even given the chance to prove themselves.
Tanya retweeted
Pessimism treats the future as if it’s already determined . But it’s not. It's something we are creating, and no one creates well for a world they've already given up on.
This style came from ballet/dance and was for women to have a clear aesthetic to chase and also be able to observe movement and lines. It was for other women, and it was intended to be viewed at home or in a nearly-all female attending aerobics class.
The women in the videos were not attending the gym and then going to get a coffee this way. The unitards were also not designed to accentuate the arse cheeks and camel toe. There is a clear difference between dancers in a ballet class and the body sculpting wear we see hugging girls in gyms across the world.
Tanya retweeted
In a nursing home filled with people in their 90s—many too frail to walk without help or stand up from a chair on their own—researchers decided to put them on a weight-training program.
Not light calisthenics. Not gentle stretching. High-intensity progressive resistance training, three times a week, with loads that eventually reached about 80% of each person’s maximum. The results, published in JAMA in 1990 by Maria Fiatarone and colleagues, upended long-held assumptions about aging and muscle.
Ten frail, institutionalized volunteers (average age 90, some as old as 96) trained their quadriceps for just eight weeks. Their strength exploded—an average gain of 174%, with some individuals more than tripling their starting numbers. Mid-thigh muscle cross-sectional area increased by roughly 9%. More importantly, function improved: tandem gait speed rose nearly 50%. Several participants who had needed canes or arm support to rise from a chair no longer did. Attendance was extraordinarily high; these were not people who were easily motivated by abstract health advice, yet they showed up and pushed themselves.
The study demonstrated something radical for its time: the muscles of people in their tenth decade still possess remarkable plasticity. They respond to progressive overload with substantial gains in strength, size, and real-world mobility—changes that meaningfully restored independence and reduced the burden of frailty. The relative magnitude of adaptation was comparable to what much younger adults experience under similar training.
In short, the experiment proved that chronological age, even extreme age accompanied by chronic disease and institutionalization, does not erase the body’s capacity to grow stronger. Strength training could reverse a large portion of the functional decline once considered inevitable.
