Federal court forces Washington women’s spa to allow biological males with male genitalia into women’s nude areas, setting a dangerous precedent that strips women of their privacy, safety, and dignity in vulnerable spaces.
Key Takeaways
- A federal appeals court ruled a Korean women’s spa must admit transgender women with male genitalia, rejecting the spa’s First Amendment claims
- Haven Wilvich, a “nonbinary trans woman” with male genitalia, filed the discrimination complaint after being denied entry to Olympus Spa
- The Washington State Human Rights Commission determined the spa’s policy violated state anti-discrimination laws
- Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented from the majority opinion, questioning whether the law’s text actually prohibits this type of discrimination
- The ruling prioritizes transgender access over women’s privacy concerns in sex-segregated spaces
Court Rejects Women’s Privacy Concerns in Favor of Transgender Access
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a blow to women’s rights and privacy by ruling that Olympus Spa, a Korean women’s spa in Washington state, cannot bar transgender individuals with male genitalia from entering women’s nude areas. The case began when Haven Wilvich, who identifies as a “nonbinary trans woman” but has male genitalia, filed a discrimination complaint after being denied entry to the spa. The Washington State Human Rights Commission determined the spa had violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.
Olympus Spa challenged this determination, arguing that forcing them to admit biological males with male genitalia into women-only nude spaces violated their First Amendment rights to free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association. The spa contended that such a mandate would compromise the environment they created specifically for women. However, the federal appeals court rejected these constitutional claims, ruling that the anti-discrimination law takes precedence over the spa’s concerns for their female clientele’s privacy and comfort.
Olympus Spa v. Armstrong: Ninth Circuit Ruling and a Path to Protect Washingtonians
In the recent case of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, decided on May 29, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a significant clash between anti-discrimination laws… pic.twitter.com/a5JLXntEtR
— TravisManer (@maner_travis) May 30, 2025
Constitutional Rights vs. Progressive Agenda
In its decision, the court dismissed all three constitutional claims made by Olympus Spa. Regarding free speech, the court determined that requiring the spa to admit transgender women with male genitalia merely compels changes in conduct that incidentally affect speech, and thus does not constitute a content-based speech restriction. The religious freedom claim was similarly rejected, with the court stating that the law does not prohibit the spa from expressing its religious beliefs. Finally, the court dismissed the freedom of association claim, ruling that a commercial establishment like Olympus Spa does not qualify as an intimate or expressive association.
This ruling represents a concerning trend where legitimate concerns about privacy and safety in sex-segregated spaces are dismissed in favor of progressive ideology. The court has effectively ruled that women must accept the presence of individuals with male genitalia in spaces where they are in various states of undress. This decision eliminates safe, private spaces for women and girls, many of whom have religious objections or have suffered past trauma that makes such exposure particularly distressing. The ruling demonstrates how far the judicial system has gone in prioritizing transgender demands over women’s rights.
Dissenting Opinion Highlights Judicial Overreach
Not all judges agreed with this decision. Judge Kenneth K. Lee issued a dissenting opinion, questioning whether the WLAD’s text actually prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in this context. His dissent highlighted the important role lawmakers should play in these sensitive issues, rather than having courts impose sweeping social changes. Judge Lee’s perspective acknowledges that these complex questions about balancing rights deserve thoughtful legislative deliberation, not judicial mandates that ignore the legitimate concerns of women seeking privacy in vulnerable settings.
Future Implications for Women’s Rights
This ruling may have far-reaching consequences for women’s spaces across the country. The decision essentially determines that a biological male’s right to access female spaces based on gender identity supersedes women’s rights to privacy and safety. The spa could potentially pursue other legal avenues, including privacy claims or seeking legislative changes that would explicitly allow sex-segregated facilities based on anatomical gender. However, such efforts face significant hurdles in progressive states like Washington, where gender identity has been elevated above biological reality in the legal hierarchy.
As this case demonstrates, the push for transgender rights continues to come at the expense of women’s hard-won protections. The ruling forces women to sacrifice their privacy, safety, and dignity to accommodate biological males in their most vulnerable spaces. This represents a troubling trend in our legal system that undermines women’s rights in the name of a progressive agenda that many Americans reject. President Trump has consistently opposed such overreaching policies that harm women and girls, standing firmly for common-sense protections that recognize biological reality.
