A sharp dissent has ignited controversy within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, revealing a deep ideological divide over a case involving a women’s spa and transgender access. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed by former President Trump, delivered a blistering opinion that has quickly gone viral, challenging the court’s decision to allow a male individual to access a female-only spa.
The case,Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, centers on a Christian-owned Korean spa in Washington State that refused entry to a person with male anatomy. The state’s Human Rights Commission sided with the individual, arguing discrimination, and the spa subsequently sued, citing violations of its First Amendment rights – freedom of religion, speech, and association.
Despite the spa’s arguments, both a federal judge and the Ninth Circuit Court initially upheld the ruling. Judge VanDyke’s dissent wasn’t a polite disagreement; it was a forceful condemnation of what he described as a dangerous social experiment. He didn’t shy away from stark language, directly addressing the core of the dispute.
“This is a case about swinging d*cks,” VanDyke wrote, immediately setting a defiant tone. He argued that the court was prioritizing ideology over the safety and privacy of women, specifically mentioning the potential for “visual assault” on young girls who frequent the spa. His words were deliberately provocative, intended to shock and underscore the gravity of the situation as he saw it.
VanDyke accused his colleagues of being “complicit” in a “Frankenstein social experiment,” suggesting they were willingly ignoring the potential harm to women and girls. He painted a picture of a court detached from reality, eager to embrace progressive ideals at the expense of fundamental rights and common sense.
The response from within the court was swift and critical. Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, led a chorus of 28 judges who rebuked VanDyke for his “coarse language” and accused him of seeking “entertainment” through inflammatory rhetoric. They argued his language undermined the dignity of the court and eroded public trust.
VanDyke, however, refused to apologize or soften his stance. He countered that his colleagues displayed a peculiar sensitivity to language while simultaneously disregarding the religious freedoms and safety concerns at the heart of the case. He accused them of “selective outrage,” prioritizing decorum over substance.
He argued that his blunt language was not gratuitous, but necessary to force a confrontation with the reality of the situation. The spa’s objection, he insisted, was specifically to the presence of male genitalia in a space designed for women, and to pretend otherwise was a deliberate evasion of the truth.
“Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth,” VanDyke concluded, respectfully but firmly dissenting from the court’s decision. His dissent has sparked a national conversation about the balance between inclusivity, religious freedom, and the protection of vulnerable populations, raising questions about the role of the judiciary in navigating complex social issues.
