Abstract

Because gender norms shape the content and application of the law, feminist scholarship has a lot to contribute to the study of law. Gender is also relevant to several problems in normative jurisprudence, and to some problems in special jurisprudence (the study of concepts in the law). But gender has no relevance to general jurisprudence for there is no sense in which the concept of law is ‘gendered’, and no answer to leading problems in general jurisprudence depends on any thesis about gender. Yet some feminist scholars, including prominently Joanne Conaghan, argue that gender is pervasively relevant to jurisprudence, though its relevance has been screened out by methodological errors that characterize what she calls ‘the analytical jurisprudential mind’. I argue that this is incorrect, by examining the relationship between gender and law, the relationship between sex and gender, and the place of sex in the legal concept of marriage. The methodological charges against ‘the analytical jurisprudential mind’ prove unfounded. I also suggest that hostility to analytical methods is likely to be damaging to feminist legal theory, and urge feminist scholars to look again at the resources of analytic legal philosophy.