Focusing on the area of gender discrimination, Post demolishes the myth of functional rationality and the dominant conception that law's goal is to render gender invisible. He offers an alternative “sociological” conception of antidiscrimination law that acknowledges that it is far beyond the law's power to render gender invisible. Rather, the law “is understood as a social practice that acts on other social practices” (p. 40). Instead of rendering gender invisible, the law (created and applied by human beings who live within the same sociological context as those who are regulated by the law) becomes another player in the construction of gender's meaning. “The sociological account does not ask whether ‘stereotypic impressions’ can be eliminated tout court, but rather how the law alters and modifies such impressions” (p. 40).

Post cites several interesting examples to support his critique of the dominant conception. He shows that the law allows employers in some instances to require that women dress in a feminine manner. Outside of organizations that primarily sell sex appeal, however, the law does not allow employers to require women to dress in a sexual manner. Post rightly points out that when the law allows mandatory femininity, but not mandatory sexuality, it is hardly rendering gender invisible. Instead, the law is participating in the social dialogue of what it means to be a woman—how are women expected to be different from men and how is femininity to be defined and when is it to be expected?

Unfortunately, at this point the book stops short. Post says: “In this brief essay, I shall not attempt to argue for any particular set of principles that ought to guide the application of antidiscrimination law” (p. 41). He then quickly finishes up his essay and we are on to the four responses. This turns out to be a shame, because the responsive essays move the discussion along less effectively than a full, book-length treatment of the topic by Post himself might have done.

While the essays are all well written and sympathetic to Post's argument, none, with the partial exception of that by K. Anthony Appiah, takes the next step of addressing how or whether the law should strive to modify the racial and gender categories it falsely claims to render invisible. Also, none of the essays tackles the question of why we treat race and gender so differently. Although Post is convincing in his argument that society does not really want to be gender blind, race is a very different area. It is inconceivable that in the area of race, the law would allow different dress requirements, separate facilities, or any of the other distinctions that are allowed in the area of gender. Post presents his analysis of gender discrimination as illustrative of larger truths about American antidiscrimination law, but gender seems to be a very special category. The social sanction for an African American who “acts white” or an assimilated Jew who puts on WASP airs is clearly not comparable to the explosive societal reaction to a man who dresses as a woman. Such a man would have an extremely difficult time getting most jobs and, as Post points out, would not even have the protection of the laws against discrimination. There is something uniquely and incredibly powerful about gender expectations, and by failing to acknowledge this, Post presents his analysis as more universal than it actually is. The important questions about how and why the law throws its weight behind conventional expectations of feminine and masculine behavior (as long as these conventions are not overtly sexual) go unanswered.

The responsive essays would have added more if they were from more genuinely diverse perspectives. An essay or two written by social scientists would have been very helpful. Although Post calls his approach “sociological,” the book fails to include any essays written by a sociologist. An essay by a political scientist, a field that has grown increasingly skeptical of the importance or even possibility of the kind of doctrinal coherence Post advocates, could also have added depth to the book. All of the essays are written by scholars who appear to be primarily theorists, and the book never takes on the question of what the law might look like were Post's theories to be put into action. The book might also have benefited from including the views of some conservative scholars who are less sympathetic to Post's position. Justice Antonin Scalia's book, A Matter of Interpretation (1997), which has a similar format to this book, benefited greatly from the inclusion of essays by those who vigorously opposed Scalia's arguments.

Nonetheless, the core argument of Prejudicial Appearances is important and well argued, and most readers will find arguments of interest to them in one or more of the responsive essays. While Post has left much of the heavy lifting for later, he has performed the invaluable service of shedding new light on antidiscrimination law and providing the framework for important future research.