Abstract
This Element analyzes the foundational frame of legal reasoning when courts interpret the 'plain language' and 'ordinary meaning' of terms such as 'sex', 'man' and 'woman'. There is a rich and complicated line of cases on how to define these terms and how to legally categorize transgender people. When dealing with different legal issues, judges need to give a clear 'yes' or 'no', determinate answer to a legal question. Marginal categorizations could be problematic even for experts. It analyses nine decisions that relate to transgender people's workplace protection under Title VII in United States and the right to marry in United Kingdom and Hong Kong. It brings in a historical discussion of the development of interpretative practices of law and legal categorization of transgender individuals across past decades, drawing on the intricate relationship between time and statutory interpretation.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Reference91 articles.
1. The sovereign state v Foucault: Law and disciplinary power;Smith;The Sociological Review,2000
2. Which textualism?;Grove;Harvard Law Review,2020
3. Still wrong after all these years;Fish;Law and Philosophy,1987
4. The Tyranny of Ordinary Meaning
5. King, M. (2003). Research and discussion paper: Perceptions of MtF transgendered persons and their sexual partners in Hong Kong. http://web.hku.hk/~sjwinter/TransgenderASIA/paperperceptions_of_mtf.htm.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献