The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Law & Contemporary Problems Symposium on "Sex in Law" Publishes Disputed Article
Some student editors had resigned from the journal due to the inclusion of an "anti-trans" article by philosopher Kathleen Stock.
The journal Law & Contemporary Problems has published its first issue of 2022, an interdisciplinary symposium on "Sex in Law." Among the contributions to the symposium is an article by philosopher Kathleen Stock, "The Importance of Referring to Human Sex in Language." In this article, Stock argues that "abandoning orthodox biology-based understandings of 'woman,' 'man,' 'girl' and 'boy' deprives language-users with immensely valuable tools to analyse and explain the material and social world. Meanwhile, any supposed gains are partial and uncertain." The inclusion of this article prompted some student editors of the journal to resign, as covered in this post.
The full symposium presents articles from a range of normative and disciplinary perspectives, addressing contemporary questions about how questions of sex, gender, and sexuality are and should be addressed in the law. In addition to Stock, contributors include Edward Schiappa, Joshua D. Safer, Anne B. Goldstein, Richard Chused, Anthony Michael Kreis, Wickliffe Shreve, Joanna Harper, June Carbone, and Madeleine Pape.
As a result of the controversy, no student editors are listed on the journal's masthead for this issue. Instead is the following statement:
As a general matter, student staff members of the journal Law & Contemporary Problems (L&CP) do not select articles for the symposium issues in its volumes. As L&CP is organized and operates, issue proposals are approved by the journal's faculty board and article selections are made by the special editors. The student role is typically to produce the issues once articles have been finalized by the authors and special editors. In the case of this issue, 85-1: Sex in Law, no articles have been read, edited, or reviewed by any L&CP student staff editors or executive board members acting in their official capacities as journal members. Over the summer of 2021, eight 3L students resigned from the journal and the remainder of the 3L membership voted not to have student members contribute to this symposium in their official capacities; these decisions were in response to the inclusion of Kathleen Stock's essay and the faculty board's rejection of the student executive board's request for use of a style guide on uniform language for the issue which the student executive board's membership considered necessary to avoid harm to the transgender community.
The issue's foreword, by Professors Doriane Coleman and Kimberly Krawiec (who were the editors of this issue), also addresses the controversy. They write:
We want to close with an expression of gratitude to the students who helped edit this volume after a number of editors and journal members resigned from the board or refused to work on it, for reasons explained in their statement on the masthead page. This includes the research assistants of individual authors, who did work that would normally have been completed by the student board, as well as Duke Law students who volunteered their time without pay or institutional credit to produce the rest. Among the latter, we especially want to recognize Meredith Criner who acted as de facto editor-in-chief even as she also did a lot of the below-the-line work normally reserved for junior members of the student board.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not sorry:
Men are men.
Women are women.
Science.
Did any of these student scumbags state that males are superior in all spheres of endeavor, including in all feminine interests. This is because they have to be.
The Equity Theory has the certainty of the laws of physics. It states, the partners in a relationship will have equal total social value. Females bring reproduction. Males are worthless unless they add a whole lot of exteranal social value. The theory is not just true at one time. It is true over time. So two strugling actors are married. One gets a $million contract. The marriage dissolves in a millisecond.
Did the student scumbags say that all PC, all woke, is case. This entire farce is so lawyers can plunder the assets of productive people. You do not kill a woke to end this garbage. You kill a lawyer on the bench and in the legislature.
No one puts the psycho in psychotic quite like David does!
"males are superior in all spheres of endeavor, including in all feminine interests"
We get it Behar, no woman can work a bbc like you do.
Hi, Queenie. What is a bbc?
Can you tell us the diversity boxes I should check off in my letter of recommendation for you?
You can google it Mayor McNut, but make sure you delete your search history before the nurses check behind you.
Hi, Queenie. First, it is, as you do, not, like you do. Second, homosexuals are better lovers because they have the same sex organs and sensations. Yet, I will put my performance in driving women to the edge of madness from delight up against any lesbian, busting many personal records by a mile. I know things from Japanese midwives, from the AARP, from the labor and delivery room. So, yes, an ordinary, het male, like me will outperform lesbians even in that subject. I care enough to have studied. Males put in the effort.
Add an MRI study from 2011 that was a game changer.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/surprise-finding-in-response-to-nipple-stimulation/
Eugene will never invite me to blog about getting rid of school woke, and totally upgrading the sexual function of the nation through enhanced sex ed. Het females would benefit the most from moving away from the current view of sex as a quick excretory bathroom function, with females serving as a portable toilet.
Lol, I doubt you've talked to many girls much less pleasured any (other than via laughter at your expense).
I do not need letters of recommendation. You do, Queenie. Now come on, I want to include the great diversity you will bring to any permanent job. List the diversity boxes that you check off.
Diveristy is good for our country. Do not be shy about listing all the diversity boxes that you check off. I want to include them in my letter of recommendation for you.
The idea of a student run professional journal, yet another idiot lawyer idea no other field has. The Dean of Harvard Law is an alcoholic, too impaired or too lazy to read articlesfor his journal. He pranks the students. Doing his in his place is a tremendous honor. They fall for it,despite knowing shit about their field. Imagine a second year med student run surgery journal or a Bridge engineering journal by Masters student . Ridiculous. That would be correct. The lawyer profession is a joke and ridiculous.
Now add a hugely complex subject subject like sexuality. These students are doubly incompetent and doubly ridiculous.
Student journals should report on proms, charitable volunteering, student projects and prizes.
A Ukrainian officer was recently pulling men off the street to serve in the Ukrainian army. He told them to say goodbye to their women. Why? Because women are not in "the mood" to fight - "not now, I have a headache." I'm reminded of that short scene in the movie "Fargo" where the two criminals have taken their captive woman to a cabin. She is covered up and tied up, and escapes from the car, only to hysterically scurry around until she falls down, much to the amusement of the criminals. More men are violent criminals, and fighters, are more focused, and have done more in building cities and cultures. Women nurture. That won't change, not even with $30+ trillion being manipulated by DAVOS globalists.
I am skeptical that this trend of abandoning biology-based language will persist. I may be wrong. Biology is powerful. The first buckets people sort others into is "people I can mate with" and "people I can't." "He" and "she" might be replaced, but there a fundamental assorting will still rear itself at puberty. Sexual selection is one of the most powerful forces in evolutionary biology. It's why male birds have all sorts of useless characteristics. Female women pass on to their kids fitness genes and strategies for having grand kids. So do men. This is how I got a mate. We are attracted to partners similar to our parents. The people who are adopting non-orthodox gender language are not the ones having the most kids.
"The first buckets people sort others into is "people I can mate with" and "people I can't."...We are attracted to partners similar to our parents."
Man, sounds like you had one messed up childhood...
Sounds like you don't do enough introspection to notice the very first thing you notice about anybody you meet: What their sex is.
You may be a reasoning being, but you're a reasoning being built out of an animal, and the animal is still there looking out your eyes, evaluating everything along the lines any animal treats as important: Is it dangerous? Is it a possible mate? A potential rival? Can I eat it?
That's all going on in the back of your head, even if you're too shallow to notice it.
progressive reasoning ends when a college student goes into a bar and tries to figure out who to hit on. On my tinder profile I am not matching with any theys or thems. I am not judgemental, people like who they like. I happen to like vaginas and I need a clear indicator which one the profile has.
“Progressive reasoning” is an oxymoron.
A genuinely progressive student would never hit on anyone.
"That's all going on in the back of your head"
Also, to add to that, there is a large body of evidence that up to 90% of communication is not verbal (body language). You can communicate a lot simply by fold your arms, or alternatively putting your hands in your pockets while displaying your thumbs. If you go to a restaurant you can predict how at date across the room is going just by watching the body language.
You may be a reasoning being, buy its all on top of a limbic system built primarily for reproduction and survival.
"That's all going on in the back of your head"
Uh, yeah now. But I didn't start sorting people into 'mating buckets' until I was near teen years, it was certainly not one of my first buckets and I certainly didn't use my parents as criteria.
Queenie. I don't know. Did you never hear of assortative mating?
I don't think you've even a-sort've mated.
Queenie. I knew what I wanted at age 3, after seeing Gina Lollobrigida in a movie. Tell us your diverse, sexual preferences, to include in a letter of recommendation.
If PTSD is a recall of a trauma that lasts a long time, what is the word for the recall of a great pleasure that lasts a long time?
Sexual dimorphism exists throughout the animal and plant kingdom. Progressive ideology wont erase it, not even in humans.
Now, what people seem to be confused about is that what it means to be a male and a female differs. In most animals the female is bigger, a pattern thats reversed in mammals. In humans there are some matriarchal societies where women are competitive and display "alpha" characteristics while the men are submissive.
Over 99% of the time, the use is the same for biology and identity. So, this is mostly a tempest in a teapot. That being said, the paper doesn't even mention one of the main reasons why identity can be preferred: it's a treatment for gender dysphoria.
Some student editors had resigned from the journal due to the inclusion of an "anti-trans" article by philosopher Kathleen Stock.
If true, it seems probable that the journal will be better for it.
Well, besides the authors' parents, no one else is going to read this anyway. Hope all the resigning students find clients they always agree with, so their little feelings don't get hurt. Pathetic.
Author's parents? Not unless they are lawyers.
It seems that one thing that contemporary academia is teaching students is that opinions -- or rather SOME opinions -- are all important. That's not true in the practice of law. Facts are important, statutes are important, regulations are important. But most important is the interests of the client (and this is as true for government lawyers and public interest lawyers as it is for private practitioners; the clients may be different, but the client's interests are always primary). In this case, the students were wrong to try to prevent the publication of certain opinions because they disagreed with them. But if their objections had been that the opposition to those opinions wasn't being presented, then they would be on the right track.
While I largely agree with you, I don't see anything here that suggests the students were trying, "to prevent the publication of certain opinions because they disagreed with them."
Rather, they did not want to help spread the opinions.
What should editors do when faced with publishing an opinion they consider repugnant?
But remember that when a web designer who has zero influence on content and is in no way being required to promote homosexuality doesn't want to do ot, they're a hero and shouldn't be required to do business with gay people.
When people who would actually be associated with promoting the content resign rather than violate their moral principles, those people are awful.
Cultural conservatives just keep proving they are hypocrites and bigots. And self-righteous, incapable of respecting anyone else's beliefs, get their feelings hurt when people call them out on their weakness and fragility, and can't accept that they are a dwindling minority of opinion.
But mostly they're hypocrites.
Web designers have zero influence on content?
I see you've never designed a web page.
Really? The web designer writes rhe content that goes on the website? Because it seems to me that the customer provides the content and the wrb designer ... well, designs. That's not advicacy or promotion by any rational assessment.
But I noticed that you didn't mention the inherent hypocricy of web designer=hero but editors=villains. It doesn't surprise me, given the built-in confirmation bias of the coercive Christian crowd.
Web designers routinely do content, yes. Of course a customer will supply some of the content, but it's usually a collaborative effort.
It is.
First you'd need to find people calling the web designer a hero.
The hyper-sensitive "words are violence" law students of today are the federal judges of tomorrow. Their hostility to free speech (and various other freedoms) will eventually become constitutional law.
The denial by law students of biological differences is just the start of the denial problems they have. These student scumbags believe minds can be read, in forecasting, that standards of conduct are set by a fictitious character. This character is an avatar of Jesus, and totally unlawful in our secular nation. Then, the sole aim of the lawyer profession is rent seeking. The masking ideologies of the self stated goals of every law subject are all in utter failure, no exception.
Except "words are violence" is self-defeating. They can't help but cancel each other. The survivors will be those who saw the intrinsic self-destruction of cancel culture and changed their minds. The unrepentant will never shut up long enough to do anything worthwhile.
Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will let me violate the First Amendment and use the government to silence my opponents.
The actual mechanics involve massive government payments to lawyers and functionaries.
I saw how dangerous this was early in the pandemic in where people born female have lower Covid death rates than people born males. And so one of the first public health officials discussing Covid had to jump through some nonsensical verbal hoops in order to convey important public health information.
Furthermore, the gold medal winning women’s soccer team has a non female player. So how is this individual eligible to play for the women’s soccer team when they are not a woman?? Did the IOC state that a certain amount of time had to have passed since the person changed the sex they were born with?? Did the individual have to have their hormone levels checked to be eligible?? No, the IOC simply went by the sex at birth of the individual which happened to be female…shouldn’t that be the standard for all players?? And men’s sports aren’t just for men—people of any sex and gender are allowed to compete in men’s sports. In fact a woman competed in college football a few years back and so men’s sports is the open division and women’s sports should be limited to individuals whose sex at birth is female.
"so men’s sports is the open division and women’s sports should be limited to individuals whose sex at birth is female."
I agree with this 100%.
Yeah, but that won't satisfy the victim class, they want to compete in the restricted division because they've never won anything in their lives, and this is their chance.
You are assuming a whole lot of unreasonable things about a whole lot of people that you know nothing about. It's almost like you just assume that they are all bad people with bad motivations.
This is why many law firms are skipping this generation of recent law graduates....
Which law firms are those?
Bob Loblaw Law Firm.
The Most Worthless Generation.
Cannot even tell a boy from a girl, let alone a fascist from an anti. Can't read a published legal opinion without needing to flee to a safe space. Who on earth would hire one of these utterly useless fruitcakes?
You're referring to cultural conservatives, right? Because they seem to struggle with a lot of the things that have changed in the world since the 1950s. Or maybe the 1850s?
"The Most Worthless Generation."
Must be Boomers, right? You know, the first generation to leave their kids and grandkids with objectively worse prospects than they inherited.
Ah yes, the perennial kids these days.
We are in the midst of a revolution against traditional stereotypes & gender/sexuality constraints. The old, 'Men Are this this & this, & women this, that, & inferior'; has been blown up. Lots of new understanding. More kilts. Traditional misogyny & gender stereotypes are the animal understanding default settings. Of course Macho is fighting back. But I don't see this society going back to keeping women & gay people "in their place".
So many people really upset by how other people understand themselves.
The students that protested don't seem to understand the name of their publication. There is always going to be a lot of silly stuff said & done. Our world & our understanding of it is changing very rapidly. And keeping up is impossible. Goodwill & humility about other people's understanding needs to be more of a thing. Instead of calling them names.