In a judicial landscape often dominated by linguistic gymnastics and political correctness, Judge Lawrence VanDyke has emerged as a rare voice of clarity and common sense. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, a case that strikes at the very heart of privacy, religious freedom, and biological reality.
While the majority of the court chose to look the other way, Judge Lawrence VanDyke refused to stay silent. His blistering dissent has gone viral for its raw honesty and its refusal to use the sanitized euphemisms that usually cloud these high-stakes legal battles.
The Facts of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong
The case involves Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean women-only nude spa owned by a Christian family. For decades, it has provided a safe, private space for women and girls—some as young as 13—to relax and bathe in a communal, clothing-free environment.
Washington State’s “anti-discrimination” laws, however, have been weaponized to demand that this private business admit biological men who identify as women. The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to protect the spa’s single-sex policy effectively mandates that women and children must be exposed to male genitalia in a space meant for ultimate privacy.
The Dissent That Shocked the Ninth Circuit
Judge Lawrence VanDyke recognized that the court was prioritizing ideology over the lived reality of women. In his dissent, he bypassed the usual legalese to point out the absurdity of the situation with a quote that has set the legal world on fire:
“This is a case about swinging dicks.”
He famously noted that while his colleagues might find such plain language shocking in a legal brief, the actual experience of the women at the spa is far more jarring. He argued that the judiciary has a duty to protect the privacy rights of women and girls, rather than facilitating the erasure of sex-segregated spaces through linguistic avoidance.
Biology Isn’t Bigotry: The VanDyke Perspective
The core of the argument presented by Judge Lawrence VanDyke is that biology is a reality, not a form of hate speech. By forcing a women-only spa to admit biological males, the state is essentially telling women that their desire for privacy and safety is secondary to a political agenda.
The Problem with Judicial Evasion
Most judges spend their careers avoiding “the quiet part.” They use complex terminology to mask the real-world consequences of their rulings. Judge Lawrence VanDyke did the opposite by calling out the physical reality of the situation.
- Physical Reality: He addressed the presence of male genitalia in a female-only nude space.
- Vulnerability: He highlighted the impact on female patrons, including minors.
- Hypocrisy: He called out a legal system that claims to protect women while dismantling their most private sanctuaries.
A Brave Dissent in the Ninth Circuit
The Ninth Circuit is notorious for its left-leaning rulings, making the stance of Judge Lawrence VanDyke even more courageous. It takes a certain level of intestinal fortitude to tell your colleagues that they are ignoring basic human dignity in favor of social engineering.
By stating, “This is a case about swinging dicks,” VanDyke forced the court to acknowledge exactly what they were asking women and children to accept: the presence of naked men in their private showers and saunas.
Why We Need More Judges Like Lawrence VanDyke
The role of a judge is to interpret the law with an eye toward justice and reality. When the law is used to force uncomfortable and potentially unsafe situations upon citizens, we need a “grown-up in the room” to cry foul.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke has shown that he is willing to be that person. Here is why his leadership matters:
- Transparency: He uses language that the average citizen can understand, stripping away the “ivory tower” facade of the court.
- Protection of Rights: He stands up for the First Amendment rights of business owners and the privacy rights of women.
- Moral Courage: He is unafraid of the inevitable backlash from the media and the legal establishment for telling the unvarnished truth.
Summary: A Victory for Common Sense
While the ruling against Olympus Spa is a blow to privacy, the dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke serves as a vital beacon of hope. It reminds us that there are still figures in our government who value biological reality over ideological trends. We must support and celebrate jurists who refuse to play along with the “nonsense” and instead fight for the safety and privacy of the most vulnerable.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Who is Judge Lawrence VanDyke? Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a Trump-appointed judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is known for his conservative judicial philosophy and his direct, often blunt, dissenting opinions.
What was the Olympus Spa v. Armstrong case about? The case centered on whether a traditional, women-only nude spa in Washington State could be forced to admit biological males who identify as women under state anti-discrimination laws.
Why did Judge VanDyke use the phrase “swinging dicks” in his dissent? He used this blunt language to highlight the court’s hypocrisy. He argued that if the judges are offended by the words, they should be even more concerned about women and girls being forced to view the actual anatomy in a private spa.
Why is this case significant for religious freedom? The owners of Olympus Spa are Christians whose faith guides their business practices. The ruling forces them to choose between their religious convictions regarding modesty and compliance with state mandates.
Other Law Posts
Leave a Reply