U.S. Judge Delivers Blistering Critique of 'Woke' Judicial Activism in Women's Spa Case
In a dissent that has sparked intense debate, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke has launched a thunderous defense of women's rights while denouncing what he calls activist judges with a "woke agenda." The controversy centers on a ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court that found a women-only nude spa in Washington state had discriminated against a person who identifies as female but has male genitalia.
"We're Handing Women Over to Predators"
Judge VanDyke, known for his blunt language, pulled no punches in his written dissent. "This case is about swinging d--ks," he wrote, explaining that the Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean establishment catering exclusively to nude women and girls—understandably don't want them in their facility. "Their female employees and female clients don't want them in their spa either. But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit."
VanDyke acknowledged his language might shock some readers but argued it pales in comparison to what women at the spa might experience. "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."
The Case That Sparked the Controversy
The legal battle involves Olympus Spa, a family business run by devout Christians that follows centuries-old Korean traditions requiring complete nudity for all female patrons. According to court documents, the spa welcomes women, lesbians, bisexuals, and even post-operative transgender people with one clear rule: "No male genitalia."
The dispute arose when a biological-born man who identifies as female complained about being denied access. Washington state authorities then demanded the spa allow entry or face prosecution. "One person complained," noted Judge Kenneth Lee, another dissenter in the case, "and the government pounced."
A Broader Warning About Ideological Creeds
Beyond the specific spa case, VanDyke's dissent delivers a broader warning about what he sees as dangerous ideological trends. "Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds," he wrote. "Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls."
The judge argued that women's civil and religious liberties are being hijacked, with activist judges contributing to the problem. He described an ideological creed that he believes is robbing women of their identity, erasing them from legal processes, and opening female spaces to potential predators.
Collegial Backlash and Defense of Women's Spaces
VanDyke's colleagues called his language "vulgar barroom talk," but the judge maintained that the indecorous phrasing was secondary to his main concern: protecting women's safety and autonomy. He and fellow dissenters emphasized that the spa's policy wasn't about excluding transgender people broadly but specifically about maintaining a space free from male genitalia.
The Ninth Circuit, covering the West Coast and being the largest appeals court in America, now faces scrutiny over how it balances gender identity rights with women's safety concerns. As this case continues to generate discussion, it highlights the complex intersection of religious freedom, gender identity, and women's rights in contemporary American jurisprudence.
