It says a lot about modern women when a private business imposes standards of general modesty and they feel personally attacked. So much so, that they run to social media and their local news station to cry victim. It's not an isolated incident, it is an example of a more pervasive culture of female entitlement that is plaguing the western world.
A Northern Kentucky gym called TAC Fitness is facing backlash after women say a new dress code policy is a violation of their right to "not be judged". An email sent to TAC Fitness members said the gym is enforcing dress guidelines to ensure people of all ages feel comfortable and free from “inappropriate or revealing attire.”
The "modesty guidelines" are based in the gym's core philosophy: Pursuit of excellence without vanity. Strength without arrogance. Influence without temptation by exposure.
Guidelines include:
Clothing must provide adequate coverage of the chest, back, shoulders, and thighs. Genitals, buttocks, breasts, chest, and nipples must be fully covered with opaque fabric at all times. (For skin-tight leggings: Glutes to be covered by a long tank top, t-shirt, or fabric tied around the waist.)
Shirts must fully cover the torso and chest, including cleavage.
Bottoms must fully cover the buttocks during all movements. Acceptable bottoms: Athletic shorts, pants, leggings, or sweatpants.
Tank tops and sleeveless shirts are permitted but must not be excessively low-cut.
It's unfortunate that common sense rules need to be listed for grown adults. They do not only apply to women, but it's revealing that only women are complaining.
The TAC gym's reaction is symbolic of a growing movement to "check" the problem of female privilege in a society that tells them they can do whatever they want wherever they want without accountability or consequences. The notion that women should have total bodily autonomy (meaning total freedom without boundaries) is a feminist fabrication. It's designed to exploit western values of personal liberty and push them to the extreme, while pretending as if women are "victims" if anyone tells them "No".
In other words, if they are "free" to dress how they want, then they think they should be free to "dress how they want everywhere". While some people (men) were not particularly bothered by this development for many decades, all that changed when feminists started accusing men of "assault" for simply looking at the goods that women were hanging out there.
For the past decade, it's been common for female influencers to wear clothing that rides directly up their ass, and any man who is caught looking is put on blast across the internet. Meanwhile, the same women post the content on OnlyFans for $10 per subscription. Society has allowed this grifting to progress out of fear of being accused of "oppression", but maybe a little oppression is necessary?
The rules were put in place by the Christian-owned business in response to some customers showing up in highly revealing clothing, bordering on nudity, and they wanted a better environment for families. This is completely within their rights. As the owners noted in a response to the backlash:
"What sets TAC Fitness apart from many other gyms is our commitment to creating an environment that prioritizes safety, professionalism, and mutual respect. TAC has always been God-centered. We have never hidden that, and we will continue to carry that as our foundation. We are proud to offer an atmosphere where people of all ages and backgrounds feel welcome and comfortable.
We believe it is possible to balance individual expression with shared community standards, and our policy reflects that commitment..."
Feminism is the vehicle which is used to enable female entitlement culture but the greater trend is largely fueled by the average woman's insatiable addiction to endless attention and validation. At bottom, private gyms and most public spaces do not exist as venues to feed female narcissism. A little bit of self control and modesty is not such a bad thing, and imposing such rules in most places would help to re-balance western society's spiral into radical self obsession.
Tyler Durden Wed, 05/27/2026 - 19:40Authored by Maryanne Demasi via Brownstone Institute,
In September 2025, then-US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr Marty Makary publicly acknowledged that the agency was investigating reports of child deaths following Covid-19 vaccination.
"We do know at the FDA...that there had been children who have died from the COVID vaccine," Makary said during a CNN interview.
By that stage, however, a fierce internal dispute had already emerged inside the FDA over what investigators believed the evidence showed - and whether the public should ever see the full findings.
"It really did feel like there was some sort of cover-up going on about the Covid-19 vaccines," said one individual familiar with the discussions.
MD Reports spoke with several current/former agency officials, advisers, and individuals briefed on the discussions, all of whom requested anonymity because they were not authorised to publicly discuss internal FDA deliberations.
At the centre of the controversy was an internal FDA review led by Dr Tracy Beth Høeg, a physician-scientist who was working as a senior scientist inside the FDA's vaccine division at the time.
FDA officials examined roughly 96 paediatric death reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the government database used to detect potential vaccine-related adverse events.
The review included medical records, autopsy reports, pathology findings, and follow-up investigations conducted by agency staff.
About 25 deaths following Covid vaccination were ultimately considered serious enough for high-level internal discussion inside the agency.
The findings were expected to be presented at a September 2025 meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP), the federal panel that shapes US vaccine recommendations.
But before that could happen, details of the review leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Høeg quickly became the focus of intense media scrutiny and criticism from vaccine advocates and unnamed FDA officials who argued she was relying too heavily on VAERS reports and overstating preliminary findings.
People familiar with the fallout said some FDA staff strongly objected to Høeg's methods and conclusions and allegedly sought to undermine her credibility by leaking details of the review.
The leak effectively ended plans for a public ACIP discussion and deepened divisions within the FDA over how the findings should be handled.
Some officials believed the findings warranted stronger warnings and greater transparency. Others feared public acknowledgement of vaccine-linked child deaths would damage confidence in the Covid vaccines.
"We know that there are these deaths that are due to the vaccine," said one source, referring to myocarditis cases and published reports from countries including Korea and Israel.
The controversy intensified after then-FDA vaccine chief Dr Vinay Prasad ordered additional investigation into the deaths identified in Høeg's review.
Months later, another leak brought the issue back into public view.
In November 2025, an internal memo circulated by Prasad became public. In it, Prasad acknowledged that "at least 10" children had died "after and because of receiving Covid-19 vaccination."
He described the findings as "a profound revelation."
"COVID-19 vaccines did result in the death of children," Prasad wrote. "Dr. Hoeg was correct in her assessment."
The memo triggered another round of backlash from media outlets and vaccine advocates, many of whom accused Prasad of overstating the evidence before the agency's analysis had been finalised.
Inside Medicine reported on a Dec 5 memo about a subsequent FDA analysis using a World Health Organization causality framework, which classified zero deaths as "certain," two as "probable/likely," and five as "possible."
But individuals involved in the discussions said pressure steadily mounted inside the agency to "downgrade" the findings with each successive review.
"It seemed like there was a lot of pressure to keep decreasing the number of deaths," said one source.
"It does seem like they tortured the data to get something that was more palatable."
At the same time, tensions were also growing around another unresolved issue inside the FDA - residual DNA contamination in Covid mRNA vaccines.
The issue surfaced repeatedly during ACIP discussions throughout 2025, with some advisory group members seeking additional information from the FDA about DNA levels and biodistribution studies involving lipid nanoparticles.
According to individuals familiar with the discussions, those requests were repeatedly delayed.
One individual identified Dr David C. Kaslow, director of the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR), as the official responsible for liaising with ACIP on the issue.
Another person involved in the discussions described Kaslow as the person "stonewalling" the issue of DNA contamination.
The controversy has since drawn Congressional scrutiny.
In May 2026, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) wrote to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. referencing an FDA memorandum examining paediatric deaths following Covid vaccination.
Johnson said the documents raised concerns about a potential "cover-up" of vaccine safety risks.
The letter confirmed that FDA officials reviewed 96 paediatric deaths following vaccination and ultimately classified seven cases as either "possibly" or "probably" related to Covid vaccination.
It also acknowledged that fatal myocarditis cases represented "new safety information" and documented discussions about revised vaccine warning labels.
By then, the internal dispute at the FDA had expanded beyond the deaths themselves and into a broader fight over vaccine safety warnings.
Høeg later delivered an internal presentation arguing that Covid mRNA vaccines warranted a black box warning - the FDA's strongest warning reserved for products associated with serious injury or death.
The proposed warning would have explicitly acknowledged the risk of death in children.
"If a vaccine has potential to cause death to children, I think it should be on the label," said one source familiar with the discussions.
Høeg's proposal was ultimately rejected by the agency.
In December 2025, Makary publicly confirmed that the FDA had declined an internal recommendation for a black box warning on Covid mRNA vaccines.
Makary argued that earlier safety concerns emerged during the initial multi-dose rollout and might not apply to annual vaccination schedules.
According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Høeg's persistent probing of Covid vaccine safety issues increasingly isolated her inside the agency.
Her eventual transfer out of the vaccine division and into the FDA's drug division, CDER, effectively ended her involvement in those investigations.
Only last week, Høeg was fired from the agency after refusing to resign from her position.
To this day, the FDA has never publicly released the full paediatric death review examining 96 VAERS reports of child deaths following Covid vaccination, nor the multiple revised versions of the agency's subsequent analyses.
"Why do we collect these VAERS reports if we're not going to explain to the public what we find?" said one source.
Now, months after the internal disputes first erupted, the FDA continues to face questions about what officials knew, when they knew it, and why the agency failed to promptly release its investigations into paediatric deaths following Covid vaccination.
Tyler Durden Wed, 05/27/2026 - 19:15