Pseudo-court fines town for refusing to fly imperial LGBT flag. Emo mayor ordered to undergo re-education says he won't pay.



A pseudo-court recently fined a small Canadian town and its mayor for refusing in a 3-2 vote to proclaim the month of June "Pride Month" and to hoist the LGBT activists' colors. According to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, a failure to oblige the activist group Borderland Pride constitutes discrimination.

Harold McQuaker, a small construction business owner and the mayor of the Township of Emo, Ontario — just north of the Minnesota border — remains defiant, telling the Toronto Sun Monday, "I utterly refuse to pay the $5,000 because that's extortion."

McQuaker indicated that the town council, on which he has the deciding vote, will together determine what to do about the $10,000 the court ordered Emo to pay — a sum the Sun indicated is "tougher than most criminals ever receive."

"I have a lot of respect for our four councilors," said McQuaker. "We have a special meeting of council, and they will decide that and what to do next. Either pay the fine or appeal it?"

'There's no flags being flown for the straight people.'

Following the ruling, Borderland Pride gleefully noted that McQuaker might also have to reimburse taxpayers for the legal fees associated with his years-long defense, which are estimated to total at least six figures.

Extra to imposing the monetary penalties for a democratic vote unfavorable to outside radicals, Karen Dawson of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — a nonjudicial government entity that nonetheless issues judicial-like rulings — also ordered McQuaker and the current chief administrative officer of the township to complete the woke tribunal's re-education program, titled "Human Rights 101," having determined that the Municipal Act of 2001 did not protect council members from liability under the Human Rights Code for supposedly discriminatory actions.

After all, McQuaker dared point out during a council meeting that "there's no flag being flown for the other side of the coin. … There's no flags being flown for the straight people."

'We just don't have a flagpole at our town hall.'

The so-called eLearning Module of "Human Rights 101" claims that discrimination can be overt, hidden, constructive, and systemic. Apparently, where the tribunal is concerned, perceived offense rather than intent is what actually counts. In other words, someone's anodyne remark or neutral behavior could be discriminatory depending on the interpretation of a thin-skinned ideologue.

"I will not pay the $5,000 I have been fined and will not take the training," McQuaker told the Sun. "I did not do anything wrong."

"If anybody needs training it's the LGBTQ2+ to quit pushing their weight around and make demands that people can't live with," added McQuaker.

Contrary to the regional activist group's suggestion, McQuaker insisted the claims of prejudice are all projection.

"I don't hate anybody," said McQuaker. "We just don't have a flagpole at our town hall."

'This is about the unilateral power of an unelected, unaccountable government agency to compel speech.'

"I am a husband to my wife for 51 years, father of two, a grandfather of seven and a great grandfather of one," he said. "I consider myself a very reasonable person and a good leader for our community and I would have a lot of support if there was an election."

Borderland Pride, ever difficult to please, lashed out at McQuaker over his comments Monday, stating, "What we are seeing is a public temper tantrum from an elected official who has been emboldened by the pattern of attacks on institutions and the rule of law from the political right. It is disturbing, inappropriate, and unlawful."

"Mayor McQuaker's comments reflect a flagrant disrespect for the laws governing his public office, and he should withdraw them," continued the activist group. "Mayor McQuaker is further governed by a municipal code of conduct, which requires him to respect the authority of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. He can be sanctioned by the integrity commissioner for failing to do so. We would caution him from engaging in any further misconduct of this nature. It is very clearly beneath the expectations and requirements of his office."

Allan Stratton, a gay Canadian playwright who has long engaged in LGBT activism, blasted Borderland Pride in a recent op-ed for the National Post, writing, "This is about the unilateral power of an unelected, unaccountable government agency to compel speech."

Stratton noted further that this case demonstrates the pseudo-court has "lost sight of its mission, broke public confidence in its legitimacy and provided a counter-productive example of left-wing authoritarianism."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bearded lady set to fight child sex-change ban before SCOTUS tells CNN toddlers can be trans



To the chagrin of LGBT extremists, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) ratified Republican legislation in March 2023 protecting children in the state from sex-change mutilations and puberty blockers. Three teen transvestites and their parents, later joined by the Biden Department of Justice, sued the state, seeking to put sterilizing puberty blockers and deformative hormone therapy back on the kids' menu.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against the Republican mutilation ban Wednesday. The court's decision could ultimately reinforce or spike similar bans in dozens of other states.

Ahead of the hearing before the high court, a bearded woman with the American Civil Liberties Union — the radical outfit representing the plaintiffs — explained to CNN Tuesday why she felt the law should fall, claiming at one point that toddlers can know they are transvestites.

Chase Strangio, the transvestic ACLU attorney formerly known as Kate who is set to argue against the Tennessee law before the Supreme Court, told talking head Jake Tapper that this case "is a critical inflection point for transgender people across the country. We're coming off of an election season where transgender people played an outsized role in people's consciousness in terms of the way in which we were situated as — as a threat to others."

The election helped highlight a trend: Americans are increasingly rejecting gender ideology and radical LGBT policies.

The New York Times noted that an analysis conducted by Future Forward, failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' top super PAC, found that the campaign ad with the tagline, "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you," shifted the race nearly three percentage points in President-elect Donald Trump's favor. Ahead of announcing that he was stepping down, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa effectively admitted on the basis of fellow travelers' electoral failures that the "a big bulk of our population does not support" extreme "transgender" policies.

While some Democrats may be shocked, the turning tide is no secret. A Washington Post-KFF poll found last year that 57% of Americans say gender is biologically determined; 68% oppose the use of puberty blockers by children; 58% oppose hormonal treatments for teens; and 62% say male transvestites should not be able to compete in girls' sports.

"When we look at the map of states that ban this type of evidence-based health care, we went from zero states that had these bans in 2020 to now more than half the country," continued Strangio.

The ACLU attorney indicated that she will argue before the high court that the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is a form of sex discrimination.

When Tapper raised the question of whether there is sufficient data to prove that sex-change treatments for kids is beneficial, Strangio replied, "We have decades of both clinical experience and research data showing that this is medical treatment that provides critical benefits to adolescents who need it."

Strangio apparently missed the memo about the Cass Review, which revealed earlier this year that where so-called gender science is concerned, "There is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices."

The massive multiyear investigation commissioned by NHS England found that most of the "research" underpinning so-called gender science is of "poor quality," demonstrating "poor study design, inadequate follow-up periods, and a lack of objectivity in reporting of results."

In the case of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones foisted on children, the review made clear that the uses "are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown."

"In addition to this making it difficult for clinicians to know whether these are appropriate treatments to offer, it is also challenging to provide children, young people, and families with sufficient information on which to make an informed choice," said the review. "The duty of information disclosure is complicated by many 'unknown unknowns' about the long-term impacts of puberty blocker and/or masculinizing/feminizing hormone during a dynamic developmental period when gender identity may not be settled."

Strangio suggested to Tapper that toddlers' confusion is actionable and that in some cases, the "best" remedy is life-altering drugs.

"These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us," said Strangio. "And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for 6 or 7 years before they had any relief. And what's happening here? It's not the kids who are consenting to this treatment; it's the parents who are consenting to the treatment."

Journalist Mia Hughes highlighted in her 242-page report, published in March by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, that Dianne Berg, a member of World Professional Association for Transgender Health and co-author of the child chapter of the organization's Standards of Care 8, indicated that while adolescents are not mature enough to understand "the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them," some parents also lack the requisite health literacy to understand the treatments.

"What really disturbs me is when the parents can't tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed off for," said Berg.

"As a parent, I would say we — when our children are suffering, we are suffering," said Strangio. "And these are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors, of the mainstream medical community, and doing what's right for them, for their kids in the state. ... Tennessee has displaced their judgment."

Those keen to prevent or remedy suffering might take into account the Cass Review's indications that:

  • the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
  • puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction";
  • there is "insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility";
  • there is "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation or feminisation in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up"; and
  • so-called gender-affirming care is "an area of remarkably weak evidence."

Other studies have similarly demonstrated the fallout of the drugs Strangio wants kids to access. For instance, a 2022 study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy confirmed that puberty blockers adversely impact bone density and noted that there "is increasing evidence for negative effects on cognitive and emotional development and on sexual functioning."

Tennessee noted in February that the state "acted rationally, reasonably, and compassionately to protect its children, and the Act survives any level of review. Nothing in the Constitution deputizes Petitioners to override the legislature's judgment and demand a policy they believe to be more favorable. Concluding otherwise would violate 'the most deeply rooted tradition in this country ... that we look to democracy to answer pioneering public-policy questions.'"

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti is not expected for several months.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justice Alito highlights continued 'danger' of Supreme Court's same-sex 'marriage' ruling for religious Americans



For nearly a decade, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has seen his concerns over the possible fallout of the court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges manifest in various ways, both in the public and private spheres.

In a statement Tuesday, the conservative justice renewed his criticism, stressing that the controversial 2015 decision continues to threaten and adversely impact religious Americans — particularly those who remain steadfast in their conviction that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.

What's the background?

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee outlasted much of the nation in maintaining that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs in the four states filed lawsuits, which ultimately culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges, heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Liberal justices determined in their 5-4 ruling that the right to marry is guaranteed to non-straight couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alito joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in stressing that there was no textual basis in the Constitution or corresponding history for precluding states from developing their own definitions of marriage. The conservative justices also indicated that the majority changed the focus from what the four states were constitutionally required to do to what they supposedly should do.

Extra to indicating that the court's liberal majority adopted a "distinctively postmodern" understanding of liberty and accepted an eudaemonistic concept of marriage — one divorced from any traditional understanding — Alito stressed that the decision "usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter their traditional understanding of marriage."

"It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," wrote Alito.

"In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women," continued the conservative justice. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."

Alito underscored that "those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

Foreseen consequences

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear the case Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, concerning whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects jurors from being dismissed on the basis of stereotypes about religious views and whether, again in the context of jury selection, the amendment protects "both religious status and religious belief, religious status only, or neither," reported SCOTUSblog.

Finney, a lesbian employee of the Missouri Department of Corrections, alleged that after starting a non-straight relationship with a co-worker's former spouse, the co-worker made life and work difficult for her. She sued the MDOC, alleging it was responsible for her co-worker's actions.

The New York Times noted that during jury selection, Finney's lawyer grilled potential jurors about whether they attended a "conservative Christian church," particularly one that was not all in on the LGBT agenda. The lawyer proceeded to strike off two jurors on the basis of their responses, prompting concerns about religious discrimination.

Ultimately, the jury — purged of religious Americans with orthodox views — sided with Finney. The MDOC appealed, and the case then got kicked up to the Supreme Court's attention at the request of the Office of the Missouri Attorney General.

Justice Alito's renewed concern

Justice Alito wrote Tuesday that while he reluctantly agreed the court "should not grant certiorari in this case, which is complicated by a state-law procedural issue[,] ... I am concerned that the lower court's reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come."

The conservative justice noted that "the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian."

"That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges," continued Alito, "namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government."

Alito cast doubt on whether the Missouri Court of Appeals, which affirmed the religious jurors' dismissals, respected their "fundamental rights," including the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of laws.

"When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights," wrote Alito, adding that state actions that single out the religious for disfavored treatment must survive the most rigorous scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Alito suggested that unless the jurors were somehow incapable of deciding the case "based on the law and the evidence," which the lower courts and Finney's lawyer apparently failed to demonstrate, he would "see no basis for dismissing a juror for cause base on religious beliefs."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hungary refuses to embrace European Union's LGBT activism and migration policies



The European Union wants uniformity of vision and policy among its remaining member states. To this end, bureaucrats in Brussels have worked to crush dissent wherever it crops up. This cultural imperialism has proven ineffective against Hungary, which refuses to embrace the leftist orthodoxies of the day despite facing steep financial penalties for doing so.

Gergely Gulyas, chief of staff for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, made clear Thursday that while the Hungarian government is open to meeting various EU standards, "it would be undemocratic and unacceptable" to cave on policy issues of importance to the Hungarian people, particularly those concerning LGBT indoctrination and open borders.

What's the background?

In recent years, Hungary and Poland have resisted EU demands concerning various matters of policy and governance. This resistance — the product of mandates dictated by their respective populations through fair and free elections — has been characterized as a violation of both countries' respective EU member agreements promising to uphold democratic standards and common values.

The BBC noted that Orbán's Hungary has been accused of various supposed improprieties, including the curbing of minority rights.

A sticking point for leftists in Brussels as well as the Biden administration has been a law, approved in 2021 by Hungary's National Assembly in a 157-1 vote, which increased the punishment for convicted pedophiles and banned LGBT propaganda targeting children.

Orbán has also drawn the ire of EU officials for limiting the influx of so-called asylum-seekers to Hungary by requiring economic migrants and other foreign nationals to submit pre-asylum applications at its missions to Serbia or Ukraine. Ukrainians fleeing Russia's invasion are, however, exempt, reported Politico.

Brussels has similarly blasted Poland for various policy manifestations of its Christian national identity but accused its former government of undermining the independence of its courts.

To induce compliance, the EU starved both nations of billions of dollars in funding, including pandemic recovery funds that were otherwise given in abundance to other member states. This pressure campaign came to a head in December 2022 when the European Court of Justice ruled that funding was conditional on meeting the EU's so-called democratic standards.

The bloc blocks Hungary

After eight years of resistance with the conservative Law and Justice Party at the helm, Poland appears to be on the verge of capitulation under the new leadership of incoming premier and former European Council President Donald Tusk.

"We have confirmation from the European Commission — Poland meets the last three conditions necessary for the full mobilization of structural funds — €76 billion for the implementation of programs until 2027," Katarzyna Pełczyńska-Nalęcz, the funds and regional policy minister, said on Friday.

Budapest, on the other hand, faces a longer road toward appeasement, which Orbán appears uninterested in traveling.

According to EuroNews, Hungary had to meet 27 "super milestones" as well as four additional "horizontal enabling conditions" to receive the whole of the over $32 billion owed to Hungary that has been frozen.

Hungary managed to unlock over $10.9 billion of the funds last month, having apparently addressed the EU's concerns about judicial reform. However, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen suggested last week that Hungary would have cave to LGBT activist demands, guarantee the right of so-called asylum, and bolster academic freedom to thaw out the remainder of the funds, reported Barron's.

The funds "will remain blocked until Hungary fulfills all the necessary conditions," said Leyen.

The European Parliament is not content to even allow Hungary to have the $10.9 billion it is owed. Last week, the legislature reportedly threatened to sue the EU's executive arm over the release of the funds to Hungary. It also raised the possibility of theoretically stripping Budapest of its EU voting rights.

"Parliament will look into whether legal action should be pursued to overturn the decision to partially unfreeze funds, and notes that it can use an array of legal and political measures," the legislature said in a statement.

Digging in

The Hungarian government has underscored that the democratic will of its people is incompatible with so-called democratic standards abroad.

Gergely Gulyas stressed Thursday that there would be "limits" to reaching an agreement with the EU, given what is demanded runs contrary to the will of Hungarian voters, reported the Associated Press.

"The Hungarian government is willing to reach an agreement with the Commission, but in cases where people have expressed a clear opinion, it would be undemocratic and unacceptable," said Gulyas. "For Hungary, even despite the will of the European Commission, it is unacceptable to spread LGBTQ propaganda among children, and we also cannot abandon our position on migration issues."

Orbán indicated in a Friday radio broadcast, "The only thing we can say, very calmly, as a reply is that there there is not enough money in the world to force us to let migrants in. There is not enough money in the world for us to allow them to take away our country. We will not create conditions like we see in Western European states — the threat of terrorism, crime, I could go on and on."

"And there is not enough money in the world for which we would put our children or grandchildren in the hands of LGBTQ activists. That's impossible," added the prime minister.

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico commended Orbán last week for standing up for his country's sovereignty and indicated further he would shoot down any effort by the European Parliament to wrest away Hungary's voting rights in the legislature.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Michigan residents could be fined and imprisoned for using wrong pronouns under Democrats' new bill



Democrats in Michigan's state House have passed a hate speech bill (HB 4474) that could possibly subject those who refer to transvestites by their real names, use the pronouns corresponding with a purported victim's biological sex, or have their criticisms of gender ideology taken personally by an accuser to felony charges, hefty fines, and jail time.

"As it is written, the risk that disfavored opinions will become criminal under this legislation is too severe," warned state Rep. Andrew Fink (R) ahead of the 59-50 House vote on June 20 advancing the bill.

The legislation, which would amend the Ethnic Intimidation Act, states that a "person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally ... intimidates another individual" based wholly or in part on that person's "gender identity or expression."

Those perceived to be in violation are guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of up to $5,000. If the so-called victim of the perceived intimidation is under the age of 18 and the offender is at least 19 years old, then the prison sentence can be extended to five years and the fine doubled.

The legislation, proposed by LGBT activist and state Rep. Noah Arbit (D), defines "gender identity or expression" as "having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual's assigned sex at birth."

Intimidation is defined as "a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened."

— (@)

The Daily Mail reported that if this bill is ultimately ratified, then penalties would be based on how alleged victims "feel" about so-called efforts to intimidate.

With leftists and once-respected medical institutions claiming that "deadnaming" and "misgendering" are harmful and this legislation leaving it up to accusers' feelings to to determine what is criminal, the bill could have a significant chilling effect on free speech, particularly for those noncompliant with LGBT activists' speech codes.

Earlier iterations would likely have made matters even worse.

Democrats initially scrubbed the requirement that the intimidation be intentional and executed with malicious intent.

Additionally, an earlier iteration of the bill would have enabled so-called victims of nonviolent offenses to take legal action even if the alleged offender had been found innocent in a court of law. To bring a civil cause of action, the alleged victims would only need to claim that they suffered "severe mental anguish" as a result of the so-called hate crimes. They would have been able to seek damages of $25,000.

William Wagner, distinguished professor emeritus at Cooley Law School and former U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of Florida, told the Daily Wire, "Make no mistake about it. Those advocating for this legislation will wield these policies as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred."

"One merely needs to look at the scores of cases brought against schools, churches, businesses, and individuals around our country. Proponents use these laws to silence and financially cripple those who dare to adhere to a different viewpoint and oppose their agenda," added Wagner.

According to the former magistrate judge, under HB 4474, someone who overhears a religious preacher's sermon or reads a conservative writer could claim intimidation, citing an attack on his or her "perceived gender identity."

State Rep. Angela Rigas (R) told the Wire, "The state of Michigan is now explicitly allowing the gender delusion issue to be used as a 'protected class,'" said Rigas. "This opens up numerous issues when it comes to the courts and the continued weaponization of the system against conservatives. ... We saw similar concerns when they wanted to pass blocks on 'conversion' therapy. It seems Dems want to be in the business of telling people how to think. We are determined to keep choice and opinion a free choice despite those efforts."

Besides its potential for weaponization by LGBT activists against conservatives, Wagner stressed that the law is unconstitutional because "the bill determines what is criminal 'after the action,' the opposite of the due process required by the Constitution."

Wagner told the House Criminal Justice Committee earlier this month, "We’re talking millions of dollars for the state in attorney fees that they’ll have to pay when this is challenged, and it inevitably will be by one side or the other."

Arbit maintains that "these bills do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional right," reported WEMU.

"Threats and violence and things of that nature and protecting against crime is certainly something that we absolutely should be doing in Michigan. But we shouldn't be building that around an individual's feelings of being frightened," Republican State Rep. Steve Carra told CBS News Detroit. "Scrap this bill. This is not a bill that we need for the state of Michigan."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Washington judge forces Christian-owned women's spa where nudity is compulsory to admit transvestites with intact male genitalia



A Washington District Court judge appears to have dashed any remaining hopes one Christian family had of keeping their traditional Korean spa a "sanctuary for women."

Seattle District Court Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein upheld a discrimination ruling against the Olympus Spa Monday, ensuring that the transvestic activist who brought the initial complaint against the spa and others like him will now be able to parade around the premises with their male genitalia exposed.

According to the Daily Mail, the spa, owned by a Christian family, is modeled on jjimjilbang, sex-segregated bathhouses in Korea, and requires that guests be nude inside the pool area.

Court documents indicate the spa required that entrants "physically present[] in the nude as . . . female," further noting, "Biological women are welcome." Under the rules, transvestites were welcome just so long as they had "gone through post-operative sex confirmation surgery." In other words, penises were verboten.

Transvestic activist Caleb Richmond, who calls himself Haven Wilvich and was once married to a woman, figured he was entitled to enter the female-only sanctuary, even though his anatomy was not compliant with the spa's rules or any meaningful definition of "female."

Despite there being no record of Richmond ever having attended the spa, he complained in February 2020, prompting the Washington State Human Rights Commission to respond, reported the New York Post.

The WSHRC ultimately determined that Richmond had been discriminated against on the basis of "sexual orientation."

According to the WSHRC, the commission "does not use genitals to define gender identity."

Richmond boasted online that he had successfully found a way to legally invade the women's sanctuary. He wrote, "I did it," adding he got "the main naked lady spa in the area to change their policies and allow all self-identified women access regardless of surgery and genitals."

\u201cAre you proud of yourselves @OwenJones84 @billybragg @JolyonMaugham? We'll never know, because you're cowards who have blocked the very women who you've championed this bodily autonomy violation upon.\u201d
— Helen Staniland (@Helen Staniland) 1686302951

Richmond further suggested that he was "more woman" than any of his female critics because he is "an intentional woman whereas they are only incidental."

Myoon Woon Lee, the owner of the spa, sued to reverse the decision, noting that the requirement that he admit a man to the female-only spa impinged upon his "traditional, theologically conservative" Christian values and put his female clientele at risk.

Additionally, Lee "conveyed his fear that exposing female customers (especially minors) to male genitalia could subject Olympus Spa to criminal penalties," especially since such exposure can create "humiliation, trauma, and rage."

Rothstein dismissed Lee's lawsuit and provided him 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Reduxx reported that extra to imposing himself on women's-only spaces, Caleb Richmond also has expressed a desire for a uterus implant for men.

In 2018, Richmond appeared on a Futurism podcast where he was quoted as saying, "The whole process of building that bond with a child through this period of pregnancy, through the trauma and joy of childbirth, through being there from their first moments in the world… I have so many strong emotions come up when I imagine being able to do those things."

2019 Olympus Spa Tacoma Virtual Tour youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!