性别不平等与生物至上:帕特里克·帕金森“中性”提议的性别平等分析

IF 0.6 0 RELIGION
Shannon Gilreath
{"title":"性别不平等与生物至上:帕特里克·帕金森“中性”提议的性别平等分析","authors":"Shannon Gilreath","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2022.60","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this essay, a response to an article by Patrick Parkinson, Shannon Gilreath disputes Parkinson’s claim that religiously motivated discrimination against transgender people should be the subject of special exceptions to prevailing antidiscrimination law, especially where the transgender person does not seek to conform to the traditional male/female gender binary. Gilreath maps the ways in which Parkinson’s proposal is an argument for biological superiority, which has been the rationalization for systematic and systemic social inferiority throughout history, including most notably in the contexts of race, gender, and sexuality oppression. In concluding that Parkinson’s proposal is little more than a restatement of the faulty differences-based approach to equality through law, Gilreath ultimately concludes that its principles are wholly inconsistent with the legitimate purposes of antidiscrimination law.","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"42 1","pages":"46 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Inequality and Biological Supremacy: A Sex Equality Analysis of Patrick Parkinson’s “Neutral” Proposal\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Gilreath\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jlr.2022.60\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this essay, a response to an article by Patrick Parkinson, Shannon Gilreath disputes Parkinson’s claim that religiously motivated discrimination against transgender people should be the subject of special exceptions to prevailing antidiscrimination law, especially where the transgender person does not seek to conform to the traditional male/female gender binary. Gilreath maps the ways in which Parkinson’s proposal is an argument for biological superiority, which has been the rationalization for systematic and systemic social inferiority throughout history, including most notably in the contexts of race, gender, and sexuality oppression. In concluding that Parkinson’s proposal is little more than a restatement of the faulty differences-based approach to equality through law, Gilreath ultimately concludes that its principles are wholly inconsistent with the legitimate purposes of antidiscrimination law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"46 - 54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.60\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.60","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中,作为对Patrick Parkinson的一篇文章的回应,Shannon Gilreath对Parkinson的主张提出了异议。帕金森认为,针对跨性别者的宗教歧视应该成为现行反歧视法的特殊例外,特别是当跨性别者不寻求符合传统的男性/女性二元性别时。Gilreath描绘了帕金森的建议如何成为生物优越性的论据,这在历史上一直是系统性和系统性社会自卑的合理化,包括最明显的种族,性别和性压迫的背景。Gilreath总结道,帕金森的建议只不过是对通过法律实现平等的错误的基于差异的方法的重述,他最终得出结论,其原则与反歧视法的合法目的完全不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender Inequality and Biological Supremacy: A Sex Equality Analysis of Patrick Parkinson’s “Neutral” Proposal
Abstract In this essay, a response to an article by Patrick Parkinson, Shannon Gilreath disputes Parkinson’s claim that religiously motivated discrimination against transgender people should be the subject of special exceptions to prevailing antidiscrimination law, especially where the transgender person does not seek to conform to the traditional male/female gender binary. Gilreath maps the ways in which Parkinson’s proposal is an argument for biological superiority, which has been the rationalization for systematic and systemic social inferiority throughout history, including most notably in the contexts of race, gender, and sexuality oppression. In concluding that Parkinson’s proposal is little more than a restatement of the faulty differences-based approach to equality through law, Gilreath ultimately concludes that its principles are wholly inconsistent with the legitimate purposes of antidiscrimination law.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and Religion publishes cutting-edge research on religion, human rights, and religious freedom; religion-state relations; religious sources and dimensions of public, private, penal, and procedural law; religious legal systems and their place in secular law; theological jurisprudence; political theology; legal and religious ethics; and more. The Journal provides a distinguished forum for deep dialogue among Buddhist, Confucian, Christian, Hindu, Indigenous, Jewish, Muslim, and other faith traditions about fundamental questions of law, society, and politics.
×
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