蘇珊歐肯論說，羅爾斯的政治自由主義在理論上存有內在缺失，因為它容許大多數的宗教為合理的全面性學說。那斯邦與歐肯意見不同，她為羅爾斯作辯護。本文檢討歐肯、那斯邦與羅爾斯之間的「論辯」，首先指出其間有效與無效的批評與辯解，然後提出自己的實用取向論證，以求進一步化解歐肯對於羅爾斯的異議，並藉此保留羅爾斯的政治自由主義理論有效性。此論證澄清的是，羅爾斯式自由主義所允許的全面性學說是性別化的，而非性歧視的。當這些性別化的全面性學說是合理可被接受的，它們即是正義的，而且誠如哈斯蘭兒所議，性別系統可以也應該根據正義重建為正義的。歐肯提出的挑戰，即她不贊同羅爾斯寬容地為全面性學說背書，於是在這項羅爾斯式理論應用新解之下被化解，因為它既排除了對於羅爾斯式理論的誤解，也避免女性主義者向來不縱容之理論對於女人不良對待。

Susan Moller Okin argued that John Rawls’ political liberalism involves an internal failure by tolerating most religions as reasonable comprehensive doctrines. Martha Nussbaum disagreed with Okin and defended Rawls. By way of examining the “debate” among Okin, Nussbaum, and Rawls, this article first identifies valid and invalid criticisms and defenses in such an exchange. It also provides its own pragmatic argument to reconcile Okin’s disagreement with Rawls, which allows Rawls’ political liberalism to remain valid. Indeed, what Rawlsian liberalism allows is comprehensive gendered doctrines, rather than sexist ones, which are clarified herein. These gendered views when reasonable and acceptable are just or can be reconstructed according to justice, as Sally Haslanger suggested that gender systems could and should be. As a result, Okin’s disapproval of Rawls’ liberal endorsement of comprehensive doctrines can be dissolved under this new demonstration of the application of Rawlsian theory, for it dispels misunderstandings of Rawlsian theory and avoids what feminists will not allow: bad theoretical consequences for women.