妇女的下午:国会记录能和不能告诉我们第七章中“性”的含义

Elizabeth Roth
{"title":"妇女的下午:国会记录能和不能告诉我们第七章中“性”的含义","authors":"Elizabeth Roth","doi":"10.5070/L3271047873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Roth, Elizabeth | Abstract: Editors’ NoteThis essay reviews the Congressional debate surrounding the addition of the term “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We included this essay because it serves as a reminder that the narratives we construct regarding legal and legislative history are often at risk of oversimplification. As the Justices of the Supreme Court deliberate and consider recent oral arguments regarding whether the term “sex” extends legal protections to persons on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Congressional Record from February 8, 1964 suggests one lesson: There are limits to relying on historical dialogues that exclude or mock marginalized voices. That is, if many of the proclaimed supporters of an amendment advancing women’s equality supported it solely to undermine the passage of civil rights legislation, how instructive can it be to speculate about what they intended by the term “sex”? While this essay does not answer this question, it suggests that the sincere supporters of the amendment—and even those opposed to it on the grounds it would impede passage of the legislation—were fundamentally concerned with advancing equality for any and all groups who had faced discrimination.","PeriodicalId":83388,"journal":{"name":"UCLA women's law journal","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Women’s Afternoon: What the Congressional Record Can—and Cannot—Tell us about the Meaning of “Sex” Under Title VII\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Roth\",\"doi\":\"10.5070/L3271047873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Author(s): Roth, Elizabeth | Abstract: Editors’ NoteThis essay reviews the Congressional debate surrounding the addition of the term “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We included this essay because it serves as a reminder that the narratives we construct regarding legal and legislative history are often at risk of oversimplification. As the Justices of the Supreme Court deliberate and consider recent oral arguments regarding whether the term “sex” extends legal protections to persons on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Congressional Record from February 8, 1964 suggests one lesson: There are limits to relying on historical dialogues that exclude or mock marginalized voices. That is, if many of the proclaimed supporters of an amendment advancing women’s equality supported it solely to undermine the passage of civil rights legislation, how instructive can it be to speculate about what they intended by the term “sex”? While this essay does not answer this question, it suggests that the sincere supporters of the amendment—and even those opposed to it on the grounds it would impede passage of the legislation—were fundamentally concerned with advancing equality for any and all groups who had faced discrimination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UCLA women's law journal\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UCLA women's law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5070/L3271047873\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UCLA women's law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/L3271047873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:编者按本文回顾了围绕1964年《民权法案》第七章“性别”一词的国会辩论。我们收录这篇文章是因为它提醒我们,我们构建的关于法律和立法史的叙述往往有过度简化的风险。当最高法院的大法官们仔细考虑最近关于“性”一词是否将法律保护延伸到基于性取向或性别认同的人的口头辩论时,1964年2月8日的《国会记录》给了我们一个教训:依靠排除或嘲笑边缘化声音的历史对话是有局限性的。也就是说,如果许多宣称支持一项促进妇女平等的修正案的人支持它仅仅是为了破坏民权立法的通过,那么推测他们使用“性别”一词的意图又有什么意义呢?虽然这篇文章没有回答这个问题,但它表明,修正案的真诚支持者——甚至那些以它会阻碍立法通过为由反对它的人——从根本上关心的是促进任何和所有遭受歧视的群体的平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Women’s Afternoon: What the Congressional Record Can—and Cannot—Tell us about the Meaning of “Sex” Under Title VII
Author(s): Roth, Elizabeth | Abstract: Editors’ NoteThis essay reviews the Congressional debate surrounding the addition of the term “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We included this essay because it serves as a reminder that the narratives we construct regarding legal and legislative history are often at risk of oversimplification. As the Justices of the Supreme Court deliberate and consider recent oral arguments regarding whether the term “sex” extends legal protections to persons on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the Congressional Record from February 8, 1964 suggests one lesson: There are limits to relying on historical dialogues that exclude or mock marginalized voices. That is, if many of the proclaimed supporters of an amendment advancing women’s equality supported it solely to undermine the passage of civil rights legislation, how instructive can it be to speculate about what they intended by the term “sex”? While this essay does not answer this question, it suggests that the sincere supporters of the amendment—and even those opposed to it on the grounds it would impede passage of the legislation—were fundamentally concerned with advancing equality for any and all groups who had faced discrimination.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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