‘This is a case about d–k swinging’

A federal judge in Washington recently made headlines for his scathing dissent in a case involving a female-only nude spa and transgender individuals. The Trump-appointed US Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke expressed his strong disagreement with his colleagues on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, calling their decision a “junk decision.”

The case revolved around Olympus Spa, a Korean women-only nude spa located in Lynnwood, Washington, which found itself in a legal battle after a transgender activist, Haven Wilvich, filed a complaint against the business in 2020. Wilvich, who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery, was told by the spa that only post-op transgender individuals were allowed to access the facilities. She then filed a discrimination complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission, leading to a lengthy legal dispute.

In his dissent, Judge VanDyke criticized the court’s ruling that forced Olympus Spa to serve transgender women who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery. He referred to the case as being about “swinging d–ks” and expressed frustration with what he perceived as the court’s disregard for the safety and comfort of women and young girls.

According to VanDyke, the Washington state law requiring businesses to serve transgender individuals, regardless of their stage of transition, was being applied in a way that put women and girls at risk. He argued that the spa’s policy was not discriminatory but rather a matter of safety and privacy for its female employees and clients.

Despite the state declaring the spa’s policy discriminatory in 2021, Olympus Spa complied but later sued to reverse the decision in 2022. The case has sparked a heated debate about the rights of transgender individuals and the obligations of businesses to accommodate them while ensuring the safety and comfort of all patrons.

Olympus Spa’s attorney, the Washington State Human Rights Commission, and Haven Wilvich have not yet responded to requests for comment on the latest developments in the case. The outcome of the legal battle remains uncertain, with Judge VanDyke’s dissent highlighting the complex and contentious nature of the issue at hand.