Article
Reassessing Gender Neutrality
Correction(s) for this article
-
CORRIGENDUM: Reassessing Gender Neutrality
- Volume 54Issue 3Law & Society Review
- pages: 743-743
- First Published online: August 21, 2020
Abigail C. Saguy,
Juliet A. Williams,
Mallory Rees,
Abigail C. Saguy
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Juliet A. Williams
Please direct all correspondence to Juliet A. Williams, UCLA Gender Studies, 1120 Rolfe Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095;e-mail: jawilliams@gender.ucla.eduSearch for more papers by this authorMallory Rees
Search for more papers by this authorAbigail C. Saguy,
Juliet A. Williams,
Mallory Rees,
Abigail C. Saguy
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Juliet A. Williams
Please direct all correspondence to Juliet A. Williams, UCLA Gender Studies, 1120 Rolfe Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095;e-mail: jawilliams@gender.ucla.eduSearch for more papers by this authorMallory Rees
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Since the 1970s, advocates have used the term gender neutral to press for legal change in contexts ranging from employment discrimination to marriage equality to public restroom access. Drawing on analyses of all Supreme Court cases, federal courts of appeals cases, and Supreme Court amicus briefs in which the terms gender neutral/neutrality, sex neutral/neutrality, or sexually neutral/sexual neutrality appear, this study examines how US courts have defined gender neutrality and what the scope and limits of its legal application have been. We find that the courts have defined gender neutrality narrowly as facial neutrality, but nonetheless that this limited understanding has transformed some areas of the law, even if it has had little impact on others. Our analysis confirms earlier feminist skepticism about the sufficiency of gender neutrality to guarantee equality but also points to areas in which the law has yet to exploit the idea's significant potential to address discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
References
- Antecol, Heather, Kelly Bedard, & Jenna Stearns (2018) “Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies?” 108 American Economic Rev. 2420–41.
- Appleton, Susan Frelich (2005) “Missing in Action? Searching for Gender Talk in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” 16 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 1–38.
- Baer, Judith (2008) “ Feminist Theory and the Law,” in The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford Handbooks Online.
- Balkin, Jack M. & Reva B. Siegel (2003) “The American Civil Rights Tradition: Anticlassification or Antisubordination?” 58 University of Miami Law Rev. 9–33.
- Baumgardner, Jennifer & Amy Richards (2000) “ A Day Without Feminism,” in Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
- Beiner, Theresa M. (2011) “White Male Heterosexist Norms in the Confirmation Process,” 32 Women's Rights Law Reporter 105–42.
- Case, Mary Anne (1999) “The Very Stereotype the Law Condemns: Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law as a Quest for Perfect Proxies,” 85 Cornell Law Rev. 1447–91.
- Case, Mary Anne (2010) “What Feminists Have to Lose in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation,” 57 UCLA Law Rev. 1199–236.
- Case, Mary Anne (2016) “Missing Sex Talk in the Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Cases,” 84 University of Kansas City Law Rev. 675–692.
- Chamallas, Martha (2013) Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.
- Colker, Ruth (1987) “Anti-subordination Above All: Sex, Race, and Equal Protection,” 61 NYU Law Rev. 1003.
- Collins, Paul M. (2008) “Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 5 J. of Empirical Studies 143–70.
- Collins, Paul M., Pamela C. Corley, & Jesse Hamner (2015) “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on US Supreme Court Opinion Content,” 49 Law & Society Rev. 917–44.
- Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams (1988) “Race Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” 101 Harvard Law Rev. 1331–87.
- Cruz, David B. (2002) “Disestablishing Sex and Gender,” 90 California Law Rev. 997.
- Paisley Currah, Richard M. Juang, & Shannon Price Minter, eds. (2006) Transgender Rights. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
- Davis, Heath Fogg (2017) Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter? New York, NY: NYU Press.
10.2307/j.ctt1ggjj6c Google Scholar
- Dibennardo, Rebecca (2018) “Ideal Victims and Monstrous Offenders: How the News Media Represent Sexual Predators,” 4 Socius. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118802512. Accessed 4 December, 2019.
10.1177/2378023118802512 Google Scholar
- Dworkin, Ronald (1988) Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Fineman, Martha Albertson (1983) “Implementing Equality: Ideology, Contradiction, and Social Change,” Wisconsin Law Rev. 789–885.
- Fineman, Martha Albertson (2005) “Feminist Legal Theory,” 13 J. of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 13–23.
- Franklin, Cary (2009) “The anti-stereotyping principle in constitutional sex discrimination law,” 85 New York University Law Rev. 83–173.
- George, Tracey E. & Lee Epstein (1992) “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 323–37.
- Gibson, James L. (1978) “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model,” 72 American Political Science Rev. 911–24.
- Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (1975) “Gender and the Constitution,” 44 University of Cincinnati Law Rev. 1–42.
- Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (2010) “The Role of Dissenting Opinions,” 95 Minnesota Law Rev. 1–8.
- Goldscheid, Julie (2014) “Gender Neutrality and the “Violence Against Women” Frame,” 5 University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Rev. 307–24.
- Grimké, Sarah (1988) “ Letters on the Equality of the Sexes,” in E. A. Bartlett, ed., Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and Other Essays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Halley, Janet (1993) “Reasoning About Sodomy: Act and Identity in and after Bowers v. Hardwick,” 79 Virginia Law Rev. 1721–80.
- Harris, Cheryl (1993) “Whiteness as Property,” 106 Harvard Law Rev. 1709–91.
- Krippendorff, Klaus (2004) “Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations,” 30 Human Communication Research 411–33.
- Mackinnon, Catharine (1987) “ Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination,” in C. Mackinnon, ed., Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Mansbridge, Jane J. (1986) Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226186443.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Mayeri, Serena (2008) “Reconstructing the Race-Sex Analogy,” 49 William and Mary Law Rev. 1789–857.
- Mayeri, Serena (2011) Reasoning From Race: Feminism, Law, and the Civil Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.4159/harvard.9780674061101 Google Scholar
- Meadow, Tey (2010) ““A Rose is a Rose”: On Producing Legal Gender Classifications,” 24 Gender & Society 814–37.
- Meloon, V. Helgemoe, 436 F. Supp. 528 (D.N.H. 1977).
- Nejaime, Douglas (2016) “Marriage Equality and the New Parenthood,” 129 Harvard Law Rev. 1185–266.
- Saguy, Abigail C. (2003) What is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.1525/9780520936973 Google Scholar
- Saguy, Abigail C. & Juliet A. Williams (2019) “Reimagining Gender: Gender Neutrality in the News,” 44 Signs 465–89.
- Sanders, Joel & Susan Stryker (2016) “Stalled: Gender-Neutral Public Bathrooms,” 115 South Atlantic Quarterly 779–88.
- Schlafly, Phyllis (1994) “How the Feminists Want to Change Our Laws,” 65 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 65–73.
- Schultz, Vicki (2015) “Taking Sex Discrimination Seriously,” 91 Denver University Law Rev. 995–1119.
- Segal, Jeffrey A. & Albert D. Cover (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.
- Siegel, Reva B. (2015) “Race-Conscious but Race-Neutral: The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court,” 66 Alabama Law Rev. 653–89.
- Uniform Law Commission (2018) “Parentage Act (2017),” http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Parentage Act (accessed October 15, 2018).
- Weitzman, Lenore J. (1985) The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. New York, NY: Free Press.
- Williams, Bernard (2012) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Routledge.
- Williams, Joan (1989) “Deconstructing Gender,” 87 Michigan Law Rev. 798–845.
- Williams, Patricia J. (1992) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Williams, Wendy W. (1984) “Equality's Riddle: Pregnancy and the Equal Treatment—Special Treatment Debate,” 13 New York University Rev. of Law and Social Change 325–80.
Cases Cited
- Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Comp Plans v. Norris, 463 US 1073. (1983).
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986).
- Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 US 199 (1977) (Stevens, J., Concurring in Judgment).
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 US 30 (2012) (Ginsburg, Dissenting).
- Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3d 950 (Tenth Cir. 2003).
- Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190 (1976).
- E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros Co. 31 F.3d 891 (Ninth Cir. 1994).
- Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677 (1973).
- Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 US 484 (1974).
- General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 US 125 (1976).
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971).
- In re Admin. Actions, Dated June 26, 2015, 2015-Ohio-2568, 33 N.E.3d 68 (2015).
- Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 US 455 (1981).
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003a).
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003b) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Concerned Women for America in Support of Respondent (No. 02-102).
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003c) Brief Amicus Curiae of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Petitioner (No. 02-102).
- Miller v. Albright, 523 US 420 (1998).
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 717 (2015a).
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 717 (2015b) Brief Amicus Curiae of Family Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners (Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574).
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 717 (2015c) Brief Amicus Curiae of Legal Scholars Stephen Clark, Andrew Koppelman, Sanford Levinson, Irina Manta, Erin Sheley, and Ilya Somin in Support of Petitioners (Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574).
- Orr v. Orr, 440 US 268 (1979).
- Personnel Administration of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 US 256 (1979). Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Organization for Women, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, The American Jewish Committee, Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., Federally Employed Women's Legal and Education Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, National Women's Political Caucus, Women's Equity Action League Educational and Legal Defense Fund, and Women's Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent (No. 78-233).
- Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp, 400 US 542 (1971).
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 (1989).
- Reed v. Reed, 404 US 71 (1971).
- Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 485 P.2d 529 (Cal. 1971).
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972).
- Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7 (1975).
- Tuan Anh Nguyen v. I.N.S, 533 US 53, 82 (2001) (O'Connor, dissenting).
- United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965 (Ninth Cir. 2003).
- United States v. Windsor, 570 US 744 (2013) Brief Amici Curiae of the National Women's Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars of Sexual Orientation and Gender Law, and Women's Legal Groups in Support of Respondents (No. 12-307).
- Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).
- Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 US 636 (1975).
