As Justice Kagan noted: “We’re all textualists now”. When interpreting the Constitution, everyone reads the text to determine what it means. What judges who self-identify as “textualists” actually mean is that they interpret the text only as it was meant by people at the time. It’s basically “originalism” dressed up in more pleasing clothes.
How those kinds of judges interpret the 9th Amendment is split (generally, because there is a ton of nuance to any discussion of constitutional interpretation) in two. Some (Kurt Lash is the major guy) focus on the “other retained by the people” phrase of the 9th Amendment and insist that that only means rights that were recognized by the State governments/constitutions at the time. To their reading, the 9th Amendment is simply a way to limit federal government’s power: The federal government cannot deny or disparage the rights granted or protected by the States. This reading does not allow the “creation of new rights”, it only protects those already recognized by the States in 1787, against federal action.
The other method (Randy Barnett) interprets that phrase “other rights retained by the people” more broadly to include individual, natural rights. This is the way you seem to interpret it: that there are natural rights that exist outside those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the fact that these rights “exist”, does not mean they are automatically protected against governmental intrusion by the judiciary. Judges have no role in trying to figure out what those rights are and how they are protected. The mere fact that those rights “cannot be denied or disparaged” does not mean they must be upheld by the judiciary. As Scalia said: “the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”
It’s very difficult to sum up the legal debate over the 9th Amendment in a message board post. There is a ton of intricate details, other theories (for example Akhil Amar insists the “rights retained by the people” means only collective rights, rather than individual rights), and evidence to support their views (again, for example, the fact that a much broader statement about individual rights was rejected by the Committee, which indicates to some that the 9th isn’t meant to protect unenumerated rights). But at least this is a jumping off point.