{"title":"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","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":"49 1","pages":"519-538"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"519-538\"},\"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}","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}
Defending the Sex Discrimination Argument for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Reply to Edward Stein
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.
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.