Federal court demands Washington Korean spa allow fully biological males with male genitalia into nude female-only spaces, trampling religious freedom and privacy rights of women in favor of transgender ideology.
Key Takeaways
- A federal appeals court ruled that a Korean spa catering to nude female patrons must accept pre-operative transgender women with male genitalia.
- The court rejected Olympus Spa’s First Amendment claims regarding freedom of speech, religion, and association.
- The ruling prioritizes Washington’s anti-discrimination law over women’s privacy concerns in sex-segregated spaces.
- The dissenting judge questioned whether Washington’s law actually prohibits this type of discrimination against transgender individuals.
Court Forces Women’s Nude Spa to Accept Biological Males
In a troubling blow to women’s privacy rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that a female-only nude Korean spa in Washington state cannot refuse service to transgender women with male genitalia. Olympus Spa, which has traditionally catered exclusively to biological women in a nude setting, must now allow biological males who identify as women into their facilities. This ruling represents yet another instance where leftist gender ideology has been prioritized over the comfort, privacy, and religious beliefs of business owners and their female clientele.
The case originated when Haven Wilvich, who identifies as a “nonbinary trans woman,” filed a complaint after being denied entry to Olympus Spa due to having male genitalia. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) quickly determined that the spa’s policy violated the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), which prohibits discrimination based on gender expression or identity. Rather than respecting the obvious anatomical differences that might make women uncomfortable in a nude setting, the commission chose to enforce radical gender theory.
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 Dismissed by Activist Court
Olympus Spa fought back by suing the WSHRC, arguing that forcing them to allow biological males into their women-only spaces violated their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association under the First Amendment. These legitimate constitutional concerns were summarily dismissed by the 9th Circuit, which has a long history of activist judicial rulings. The court claimed that requiring the spa to change its conduct only “incidentally” affects speech and therefore doesn’t constitute a content-based speech restriction worthy of First Amendment protection.
The court’s rejection of the spa’s religious freedom claim is particularly concerning. The judges asserted that the law doesn’t prohibit the spa from expressing religious beliefs but simply requires them to act against those beliefs—a distinction without a difference for people of faith. Similarly, the freedom of association claim was rejected because the court determined the spa is neither an “intimate” nor an “expressive” association. This narrow interpretation of constitutional protections effectively places the progressive gender agenda above religious liberty.
Women’s Privacy Rights Sacrificed for Gender Ideology
Perhaps most disturbing about this ruling is the complete disregard for the privacy and comfort of the spa’s female clients. Women who choose to patronize a female-only nude spa have a reasonable expectation that they won’t be exposed to male genitalia in that setting. Many women who use such facilities may be survivors of sexual assault, have religious objections to mixed-sex nudity, or simply prefer the comfort of a single-sex environment. These legitimate concerns have been casually dismissed in favor of accommodating transgender demands.
The dissenting opinion from Judge Kenneth K. Lee highlighted the overreach of this ruling. Lee questioned whether Washington’s anti-discrimination law’s text actually prohibits discrimination against transgender people in this context, suggesting that such sweeping social changes should come from lawmakers, not courts. His dissent underscores how judicial activism is being used to force radical social changes without democratic debate or consideration of competing rights and interests.
The Assault on Sex-Segregated Spaces Continues
This ruling represents yet another attack on women’s sex-segregated spaces in America. From locker rooms to bathrooms to prisons, traditional women-only spaces are being systematically eliminated to accommodate biological males who identify as women. The decision creates a precedent that could be applied to numerous other settings, forcing businesses and organizations to ignore biological reality in favor of gender identity ideology. For conservative Americans who believe in biological reality and the importance of privacy and modesty, this ruling is deeply troubling.
Legal experts suggest that the spa could pursue privacy-based claims or seek legislative changes that would specifically allow gender-segregated facilities based on anatomical sex rather than gender identity. However, with the current political climate in Washington state, such legislative relief seems unlikely. Once again, unelected judges have imposed a radical social agenda on Americans without their consent, leaving women’s privacy concerns as an afterthought in the rush to accommodate transgender demands.
