Defending the Sex Discrimination Argument for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Reply to Edward Stein

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
A. Koppelman
{"title":"Defending the Sex Discrimination Argument for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Reply to Edward Stein","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2601762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Edward Stein’s is only the latest and most systematic of a growing number of criticisms of the sex discrimination argument, from the left and the right. Stein’s doctrinal objections to the argument misconceive the reach of present doctrine, which treats all sex-based classifications with deep suspicion. His empirical doubts misapprehend both the argument’s claims and the enduring connections between heterosexism and sexism. His only persuasive claim is his moral objection, which argues that the sex discrimination argument ignores, and may render invisible, a central moral wrong of anti-gay discrimination. This is a profound moral difficulty, but it is one that is present in almost any legal argument, and perhaps in language as such. It therefore cannot be an objection against any particular argument.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ucla Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2601762","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Edward Stein’s is only the latest and most systematic of a growing number of criticisms of the sex discrimination argument, from the left and the right. Stein’s doctrinal objections to the argument misconceive the reach of present doctrine, which treats all sex-based classifications with deep suspicion. His empirical doubts misapprehend both the argument’s claims and the enduring connections between heterosexism and sexism. His only persuasive claim is his moral objection, which argues that the sex discrimination argument ignores, and may render invisible, a central moral wrong of anti-gay discrimination. This is a profound moral difficulty, but it is one that is present in almost any legal argument, and perhaps in language as such. It therefore cannot be an objection against any particular argument.
为男女同性恋者的权利辩护性别歧视论点:对爱德华·斯坦的回复
来自左翼和右翼的对性别歧视的批评越来越多,爱德华·斯坦(Edward Stein)的观点只是其中最新、最系统的一个。斯坦对这一论点的教义上的反对误解了当前教义的范围,这种教义对所有基于性别的分类都持深深的怀疑态度。他的经验主义怀疑既误解了论证的主张,也误解了异性恋和性别歧视之间的持久联系。他唯一有说服力的主张是他的道德反对意见,他认为性别歧视的论点忽视了反同性恋歧视这一核心道德错误,甚至可能使其隐形。这是一个深刻的道德难题,但它几乎存在于任何法律论证中,也许在语言中也是如此。因此,它不能成为反对任何特定论点的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ucla Law Review
Ucla Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren welcomed the UCLA Law Review''s founding volume by stating that, “[t]o a judge, whose decisions provide grist for the law review mill, the review may be both a severe critique and a helpful guide.” The UCLA Law Review seeks to publish the highest quality legal scholarship written by professors, aspiring academics, and students. In doing so, we strive to provide an environment in which UCLA Law Review students may grow as legal writers and thinkers. Founded in December 1953, the UCLA Law Review publishes six times per year by students of the UCLA School of Law and the Regents of the University of California. We also publish material solely for online consumption and dialogue in Discourse, and we produce podcasts in Dialectic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信