"This is a case about swinging dicks," wrote Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in March. "You may think that swinging dicks shouldn't appear in a judicial opinion. 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 thirteen—to be visually assaulted by the real thing."
VanDyke was dissenting from the 9th Circuit's decision not to revisit Olympus v. Armstrong, a case that saw an all-female Korean spa sue on First Amendment grounds. The business, according to the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), had broken the law when it declined to accept a preoperative transgender woman. This was a problem for Olympus Spa, which requires nudity in its pool area, and whose business model, relatedly, hinges on catering to a single-sex clientele.
