The Limits of Equality and the Virtues of Discrimination

This article focuses on the application of antidiscrimination regimes to groups which have been discriminated-against de jure and de facto. This Article approaches diverges from the dominant view that discrimination is a purely destructive force. The central argument of the Article is that de jure, overt and blatant discrimination necessarily contributes to the creation of a coherent group identity recognized by law, which enables groups that are discriminated against to obtain remedial relief. In contrast, the law fails to recognize a coherent group identity for de facto discriminated-against groups and thus these groups have to overcome a structural challenge to obtain remedial relief to counter the discrimination. Thus, strangely, groups that are discriminated against de jure might be better off than groups that are discriminated against only de facto once one considers both the discriminatory and the remedial phases. After establishing the de jure/de facto distinction, the article explores the effects of this distinction on the equal protection claims of discriminated-against groups by contrasting the experiences of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans

The Limits of Equality - Wishing for Discrimination?

The Limits of Equality – Wishing for Discrimination? Yifat Bitton Abstract The article focuses on the different manner in which antidiscrimination regimes treat groups that have been discriminated-against de jure and de facto. The Article approaches the prerequisite of antidiscrimination laws that there be some past or on-going discrimination in a manner that diverges from the dominant view that discrimination is a purely destructive force. The central argument is that the way in which de jure, overt and blatant discrimination necessarily must create a coherent group identity recognized by law allows groups that are discriminated against in this manner to obtain remedial relief, whereas the law fails to recognize a coherent group identity for de facto discriminated-against groups and thus these groups have to overcome a structural challenge to obtain remedial relief to counter the discrimination. Thus, strangely, groups that are discriminated against de jure might be better off than groups that are discriminated against only de facto once one considers both the discriminatory and the remedial phases. After establishing the de jure/de facto distinction, the article explores the effects of this distinction on the equal protection claims of discriminated-against groups by contrasting the experiences of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans

Transformative Feminist Approach to Tort Law: Exposing, Changing, Expanding - The Israeli Case

Tort law developed into a cornerstone of private law through the influence of traditional legal approaches, such as legal realism and economic reasoning. However, second-wave feminist analysis has also transformed tort law in recent years. By comparing U.S. and Israeli cases, the author demonstrates that feminist critique has added a new dimension to this legal field. Chapter One introduces the obstacles that have impeded the mainstreaming of feminist discourse. Chapter Two explores how gender biases inherent and perpetuated in tort law better serve men than women. The eventual exposure of these biases led to feminist-derived changes in Israeli tort law, which is explained in Chapter Three. The final chapter identifies the limitations of current feminist analysis to tort law, and concludes with the author\u27s support for further evolution and application of this analysis

Liability of Bias: A Comparative Study of Gender-Related Interests in Negligence Law

This article examines a feminist argument concerning the gendered structure of tort law in which interests that can be identified as gendered are subject to different levels of recognition resulting from gender bias. Using a comparative methodology, the article contends that negligence law regarding pure-economic loss and indirect-emotional harm is constructed along lines of gender bias. The argument is underlined by the notion of gender-related interests, establishing pure-economic loss as male-related and indirect-emotional harm as female-related. On its first comparative analysis, the similarities and differences between these two harms as perceived by tort conventions and principles should have yielded leverage to indirect-emotional harm as fitting more squarely with tort law’s fundamental conceptions than its counterpart, pure-economic loss. However, the course of legal recognition both harms have undergone in Anglo-American negligence law reveals that both losses were relatively similarly alienated from negligence law. Seeking further resources from which to draw on the significance of the gendered nature of these interests within negligence law, the article then proceeds to its second comparative dimension. Here it reviews Israeli negligence law, where indirect-emotional harm and economic loss function as legal implantations imported from Anglo-American law. Notwithstanding its deepest Anglo-American legal roots, Israeli negligence law, nonetheless, reveals a sharp departure in its adjudication on the matter from the Anglo-American tradition. Probing deeper into Israeli tort law, illuminates a unique phenomenon whereby the rhetoric of the court attributes the same relative-illegitimacy to both economic loss and indirect-emotional harm. However, reality indicates they are subject to significantly different treatment. This biased pattern bears harmful distributive implications as it embodies a two-dimension discrimination practice whereby in addition to disadvantaging female related interests, negligence law unequally prefers male-related interests. Specific attention is given in the article to the comparative phenomenon whereby the Israeli legal system that draws so heavily on dominant Anglo-American law administers negligence law upon more discriminatory standards thereby reflecting the gendered nature of Anglo-American negligence law

Liability of Bias: A Comparative Study of Gender-Related Interests in Negligence Law

This article examines a feminist argument concerning the gendered structure of tort law in which interests that can be identified as gendered are subject to different levels of recognition resulting from gender bias. Using a comparative methodology, the article contends that negligence law regarding pure-economic loss and indirect-emotional harm is constructed along lines of gender bias. The argument is underlined by the notion of gender-related interests, establishing pure-economic loss as male-related and indirect-emotional harm as female-related. On its first comparative analysis, the similarities and differences between these two harms as perceived by tort conventions and principles should have yielded leverage to indirect-emotional harm as fitting more squarely with tort law’s fundamental conceptions than its counterpart, pure-economic loss. However, the course of legal recognition both harms have undergone in Anglo-American negligence law reveals that both losses were relatively similarly alienated from negligence law. Seeking further resources from which to draw on the significance of the gendered nature of these interests within negligence law, the article then proceeds to its second comparative dimension. Here it reviews Israeli negligence law, where indirect-emotional harm and economic loss function as legal implantations imported from Anglo-American law. Notwithstanding its deepest Anglo-American legal roots, Israeli negligence law, nonetheless, reveals a sharp departure in its adjudication on the matter from the Anglo-American tradition. Probing deeper into Israeli tort law, illuminates a unique phenomenon whereby the rhetoric of the court attributes the same relative-illegitimacy to both economic loss and indirect-emotional harm. However, reality indicates they are subject to significantly different treatment. This biased pattern bears harmful distributive implications as it embodies a two-dimension discrimination practice whereby in addition to disadvantaging female related interests, negligence law unequally prefers male-related interests. Specific attention is given in the article to the comparative phenomenon whereby the Israeli legal system that draws so heavily on dominant Anglo-American law administers negligence law upon more discriminatory standards thereby reflecting the gendered nature of Anglo-American negligence law

Cation Diffusion Facilitators Transport Initiation and Regulation Is Mediated by Cation Induced Conformational Changes of the Cytoplasmic Domain

Cation diffusion facilitators (CDF) are part of a highly conserved protein family that maintains cellular divalent cation homeostasis in all domains of life. CDF's were shown to be involved in several human diseases, such as Type-II diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases. In this work, we employed a multi-disciplinary approach to study the activation mechanism of the CDF protein family. For this we used MamM, one of the main ion transporters of magnetosomes - bacterial organelles that enable magnetotactic bacteria to orientate along geomagnetic fields. Our results reveal that the cytosolic domain of MamM forms a stable dimer that undergoes distinct conformational changes upon divalent cation binding. MamM conformational change is associated with three metal binding sites that were identified and characterized. Altogether, our results provide a novel auto-regulation mode of action model in which the cytosolic domain's conformational changes upon ligand binding allows the priming of the CDF into its transport mode

Gender injustice in compensating injury to autonomy in English and Singaporean negligence law

The extent to which English law remedies injury to autonomy (ITA) as a stand-alone actionable damage in negligence is disputed. In this article I argue that the remedy available is not only partial and inconsistent (Keren-Paz in Med Law Rev, 2018) but also gendered and discriminatory against women. I first situate the argument within the broader feminist critique of tort law as failing to appropriately remedy gendered harms, and of law more broadly as undervaluing women’s interest in reproductive autonomy. I then show by reference to English remedies law’s first principles how imposed motherhood cases—Rees v Darlington and its predecessor McFarlane v Tayside Health Board—result in gender injustice when compared with other autonomy cases such as Chester v Afshar and Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust: A minor gender-neutral ITA is better remedied than the significant gendered harm of imposing motherhood on the claimant; men’s reproductive autonomy is protected to a greater extent than women’s; women’s reproductive autonomy is protected by an exceptional, derisory award. Worst of all, courts refuse to recognise imposed motherhood as detriment; and the deemed, mansplained, nonpecuniary joys of motherhood are used to offset pecuniary upkeep costs, forcing the claimant into a position she sought to avoid and thus further undermining her autonomy. The recent Singaporean case ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, awarding compensation for undermining the claimant’s genetic affinity in an IVF wrong-sperm-mix-up demonstrates some improvement in comparison to English law, and some shared gender injustices in the context of reproductive autonomy. ACB’s analysis is oblivious to the nature of reproductive autonomy harm as gendered; and prioritises the father’s interest in having genetic affinity with the baby over a woman’s interest in not having motherhood imposed upon her