Judge goes full edgelord in dissent, immediately regrets nothing

A screenshot of a legal article discussing a controversial federal court decision. The text contains an inflammatory dissenting opinion from Judge VanDyke regarding a sex-based access case at a Korean spa, featuring crude language and inflammatory rhetoric about 'woke' policies. The passage explicitly mentions minors and uses deliberately provocative phrasing. Extracted text: The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc Olympus Spa v. Armstrong. Judge VanDyke wrote the lead dissent, which begins this way: This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don't want them in their spa. 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. 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. Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. 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. As you could imagine, this line infuriated Judge VanDyke's colleagues.