Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T02:15:01.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reassessing Gender Neutrality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Abigail C. Saguy ,
Juliet A. Williams Open the ORCID record for Juliet A. Williams [Opens in a new window]  and
Mallory Rees
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 7 - 32
Copyright
© 2019 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Antecol, Heather, Bedard, Kelly, & Stearns, Jenna (2018) “Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies?” 108 American Economic Rev. 2420–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, Susan Frelich (2005) “Missing in Action? Searching for Gender Talk in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” 16 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 1–38.Google Scholar
Baer, Judith (2008) “Feminist Theory and the Law,” in The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford Handbooks Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. & Siegel, Reva B. (2003) “The American Civil Rights Tradition: Anticlassification or Antisubordination?” 58 University of Miami Law Rev. 9–33.Google Scholar
Baumgardner, Jennifer & Richards, Amy (2000) “A Day Without Feminism,” in Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
Beiner, Theresa M. (2011) “White Male Heterosexist Norms in the Confirmation Process,” 32 Women's Rights Law Reporter 105–42.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Case, Mary Anne (2010) “What Feminists Have to Lose in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation,” 57 UCLA Law Rev. 1199–236.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Chamallas, Martha (2013) Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Colker, Ruth (1987) “Anti-subordination Above All: Sex, Race, and Equal Protection,” 61 NYU Law Rev. 1003.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. (2008) “Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 5 J. of Empirical Studies 143–70.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M., Corley, Pamela C., & Hamner, Jesse (2015) “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on US Supreme Court Opinion Content,” 49 Law & Society Rev. 917–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams (1988) “Race Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” 101 Harvard Law Rev. 1331–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, David B. (2002) “Disestablishing Sex and Gender,” 90 California Law Rev. 997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currah, Paisley, Juang, Richard M., & Minter, Shannon Price, eds. (2006) Transgender Rights. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Heath Fogg (2017) Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter? New York, NY: NYU Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1988) Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha Albertson (1983) “Implementing Equality: Ideology, Contradiction, and Social Change,” Wisconsin Law Rev. 789–885.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha Albertson (2005) “Feminist Legal Theory,” 13 J. of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 13–23.Google Scholar
Franklin, Cary (2009) “The anti-stereotyping principle in constitutional sex discrimination law,” 85 New York University Law Rev. 83–173.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E. & Epstein, Lee (1992) “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” 86 American Political Science Rev. 323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. (1978) “Judges' Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model,” 72 American Political Science Rev. 911–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (1975) “Gender and the Constitution,” 44 University of Cincinnati Law Rev. 1–42.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (2010) “The Role of Dissenting Opinions,” 95 Minnesota Law Rev. 1–8.Google Scholar
Goldscheid, Julie (2014) “Gender Neutrality and the “Violence Against Women” Frame,” 5 University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Rev. 307–24.Google Scholar
Grimké, Sarah (1988) “Letters on the Equality of the Sexes,” in Bartlett, E. A., ed., Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and Other Essays. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Halley, Janet (1993) “Reasoning About Sodomy: Act and Identity in and after Bowers v. Hardwick,” 79 Virginia Law Rev. 1721–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Cheryl (1993) “Whiteness as Property,” 106 Harvard Law Rev. 1709–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus (2004) “Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations,” 30 Human Communication Research 411–33.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, Catharine (1987) “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination,” in Mackinnon, C., ed., Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. (1986) Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayeri, Serena (2008) “Reconstructing the Race-Sex Analogy,” 49 William and Mary Law Rev. 1789–857.Google Scholar
Mayeri, Serena (2011) Reasoning From Race: Feminism, Law, and the Civil Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow, Tey (2010) ““A Rose is a Rose” : On Producing Legal Gender Classifications,” 24 Gender & Society 814–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meloon, V. Helgemoe, 436 F. Supp. 528 (D.N.H. 1977).Google Scholar
Nejaime, Douglas (2016) “Marriage Equality and the New Parenthood,” 129 Harvard Law Rev. 1185–266.Google Scholar
Saguy, Abigail C. (2003) What is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saguy, Abigail C. & Williams, Juliet A. (2019) “Reimagining Gender: Gender Neutrality in the News,” 44 Signs 465–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Joel & Stryker, Susan (2016) “Stalled: Gender-Neutral Public Bathrooms,” 115 South Atlantic Quarterly 779–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlafly, Phyllis (1994) “How the Feminists Want to Change Our Laws,” 65 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 65–73.Google Scholar
Schultz, Vicki (2015) “Taking Sex Discrimination Seriously,” 91 Denver University Law Rev. 995–1119.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D. (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. (2015) “Race-Conscious but Race-Neutral: The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court,” 66 Alabama Law Rev. 653–89.Google Scholar
Uniform Law Commission (2018) “Parentage Act (2017),” http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Parentage Act (accessed October 15, 2018).Google Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore J. (1985) The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard (2012) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, Joan (1989) “Deconstructing Gender,” 87 Michigan Law Rev. 798–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Patricia J. (1992) The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Comp Plans v. Norris, 463 US 1073. (1983).Google Scholar
Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986).Google Scholar
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 US 199 (1977) (Stevens, J., Concurring in Judgment).Google Scholar
Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 US 30 (2012) (Ginsburg, Dissenting).Google Scholar
Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3d 950 (Tenth Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros Co. 31 F.3d 891 (Ninth Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677 (1973).Google Scholar
Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 US 484 (1974).Google Scholar
General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 US 125 (1976).Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971).Google Scholar
In re Admin. Actions, Dated June 26, 2015, 2015-Ohio-2568, 33 N.E.3d 68 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 US 455 (1981).Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003a).Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003b) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Concerned Women for America in Support of Respondent (No. 02-102).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Miller v. Albright, 523 US 420 (1998).3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US 717 (2015a).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Orr v. Orr, 440 US 268 (1979).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp, 400 US 542 (1971).Google Scholar
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 (1989).Google Scholar
Reed v. Reed, 404 US 71 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 485 P.2d 529 (Cal. 1971).Google Scholar
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972).Google Scholar
Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. I.N.S, 533 US 53, 82 (2001) (O'Connor, dissenting).Google Scholar
United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965 (Ninth Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 US 636 (1975).Google Scholar