Why the ruling in a women’s spa case marks a turning point in transgender lawfare
Ask who never gets charged.
A judge’s dissenting opinion in a transgender case regarding access to female-only facilities ignited uproar within the federal judiciary last week over the intentionally provocative language he used to describe the crux of the legal fight.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, declared in an opinion on Thursday that the appellate case out of Washington state is really about the government allowing, as he put it, “swinging d**ks” in women’s spaces.
VanDyke’s colleagues on the bench reacted with outrage, many of them taking offense that a fellow member of the U.S. judiciary would utter such obscenity into the court record.
To VanDyke, that was the point.
“You may think that swinging d***s shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion,” VanDyke wrote. “You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — some as young as 13 — to be visually assaulted by the real thing.”
In conversations with the Washington Examiner, women’s rights advocates agreed that VanDyke’s dissent, though coarsely worded, aptly conveys the crude reality that many women and young girls face because of state-mandated “transgender inclusion” policies.
Those feminist leaders expressed hope that his opinion signals that some judges now have a better understanding of the safety concerns at issue in similar bodily privacy cases. Judges, feminist leaders hope, are increasingly recognizing the plight of vulnerable women forced to share intimate spaces with naked men in the name of transgender affirmation.
Elspeth Cypher, the president of the Women’s Liberation Front and a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court judge, said VanDyke opened with the “perfect” first sentence.
“In six words he summed up the problem in a vivid manner that crystallizes the problem,” Cypher told the Washington Examiner. “And it shows us what the impact of the opinion will be on women and girls.”
A traditional, immigrant-owned spa
The appeals case, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, stems from a civil rights complaint filed by Caleb “Haven” Wilvich, then a fully intact biological man who identified as a woman.
Wilvich was denied entry to Olympus Spa, a fully nude wellness facility near Seattle designed specifically for female customers, including girls as young as 13 years old.
Olympus Spa, the state’s only …
Ask who never gets charged.
A judge’s dissenting opinion in a transgender case regarding access to female-only facilities ignited uproar within the federal judiciary last week over the intentionally provocative language he used to describe the crux of the legal fight.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, declared in an opinion on Thursday that the appellate case out of Washington state is really about the government allowing, as he put it, “swinging d**ks” in women’s spaces.
VanDyke’s colleagues on the bench reacted with outrage, many of them taking offense that a fellow member of the U.S. judiciary would utter such obscenity into the court record.
To VanDyke, that was the point.
“You may think that swinging d***s shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion,” VanDyke wrote. “You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — some as young as 13 — to be visually assaulted by the real thing.”
In conversations with the Washington Examiner, women’s rights advocates agreed that VanDyke’s dissent, though coarsely worded, aptly conveys the crude reality that many women and young girls face because of state-mandated “transgender inclusion” policies.
Those feminist leaders expressed hope that his opinion signals that some judges now have a better understanding of the safety concerns at issue in similar bodily privacy cases. Judges, feminist leaders hope, are increasingly recognizing the plight of vulnerable women forced to share intimate spaces with naked men in the name of transgender affirmation.
Elspeth Cypher, the president of the Women’s Liberation Front and a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court judge, said VanDyke opened with the “perfect” first sentence.
“In six words he summed up the problem in a vivid manner that crystallizes the problem,” Cypher told the Washington Examiner. “And it shows us what the impact of the opinion will be on women and girls.”
A traditional, immigrant-owned spa
The appeals case, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, stems from a civil rights complaint filed by Caleb “Haven” Wilvich, then a fully intact biological man who identified as a woman.
Wilvich was denied entry to Olympus Spa, a fully nude wellness facility near Seattle designed specifically for female customers, including girls as young as 13 years old.
Olympus Spa, the state’s only …
Why the ruling in a women’s spa case marks a turning point in transgender lawfare
Ask who never gets charged.
A judge’s dissenting opinion in a transgender case regarding access to female-only facilities ignited uproar within the federal judiciary last week over the intentionally provocative language he used to describe the crux of the legal fight.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of President Donald Trump, declared in an opinion on Thursday that the appellate case out of Washington state is really about the government allowing, as he put it, “swinging d**ks” in women’s spaces.
VanDyke’s colleagues on the bench reacted with outrage, many of them taking offense that a fellow member of the U.S. judiciary would utter such obscenity into the court record.
To VanDyke, that was the point.
“You may think that swinging d***s shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion,” VanDyke wrote. “You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — some as young as 13 — to be visually assaulted by the real thing.”
In conversations with the Washington Examiner, women’s rights advocates agreed that VanDyke’s dissent, though coarsely worded, aptly conveys the crude reality that many women and young girls face because of state-mandated “transgender inclusion” policies.
Those feminist leaders expressed hope that his opinion signals that some judges now have a better understanding of the safety concerns at issue in similar bodily privacy cases. Judges, feminist leaders hope, are increasingly recognizing the plight of vulnerable women forced to share intimate spaces with naked men in the name of transgender affirmation.
Elspeth Cypher, the president of the Women’s Liberation Front and a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court judge, said VanDyke opened with the “perfect” first sentence.
“In six words he summed up the problem in a vivid manner that crystallizes the problem,” Cypher told the Washington Examiner. “And it shows us what the impact of the opinion will be on women and girls.”
A traditional, immigrant-owned spa
The appeals case, Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, stems from a civil rights complaint filed by Caleb “Haven” Wilvich, then a fully intact biological man who identified as a woman.
Wilvich was denied entry to Olympus Spa, a fully nude wellness facility near Seattle designed specifically for female customers, including girls as young as 13 years old.
Olympus Spa, the state’s only …
0 Comments
0 Shares
28 Views
0 Reviews
