代理孕母的最新爭議：「優先法案」與專業迴避

https://udn.com/news/story/7339/9263604?from=udn_ch2cate6643sub7339_pulldownmenu_v2

顧燕翎　

　 民眾黨前主席柯文哲將代理孕母納入人工生殖法列為民眾黨的「優先法案」，並且積極遊說其他政黨儘速通過，「先求有，再求好」。因為他曾答應黨內某位不分區立委，讓她在任內完成此立法目標。這說法雖然解釋了民眾黨的優先次序，卻也令人質疑：政治人物之間的承諾，可以成為一部法律必須被通過的理由？答案必然是否定的。

　　法律的正當性，來自公共利益、公共理由與公開審議，而非任何個人之間的約定或政治交換，即便這人是總統或黨主席。當這樣的協議被拿到公共空間，作為「為什麼這個法案必須優先處理」的理由時，表示：法律的優先順序，可以由少數人的承諾來決定。這樣的邏輯，非但違反民主制度，對於社會的公平正義也有所危害。

女人的身體，男人的法律？ Women's Bodies but Men's Legislation (on Abortion)

顧燕翎  (刋載於觀察雜誌 8月號)

回顧婦女史，墮胎曾經發生在任何時代、任何地方的父權社會。是的，沒有女人樂意墮胎，然而在有婦科手術以前或墮胎被禁止的地方，仍有許多女人不得已採用各式方法終結懷孕，包括搬動重物、故意跌倒、用尖銳物品刺傷自己、暗中尋找密醫或者遠涉國外動手術。一旦女人懷孕不被社會或家人接受、沒有能力生養或者被強暴受孕，為了逃避更大、更長久的痛苦或制裁，只得冒死出此下策。即便到了21世紀，醫療科技發達，世衛仍然發現每年有兩萬多名婦女因不安全或非法墮胎死亡，越是經濟拮据的女性越難獲得安全的人工流產。

從研究「婦女」到女性主義觀點研究：一探婦女研究在台灣的發展脈絡 From Studying "Women" to Feminist Studies-- Women's Studies in Taiwan

 台北女書店2021年11月13日線上研討會 On-line conference by fembooks in Taipei

顧燕翎

   1.    獨立新學門或整合入傳統學門（autonomous vs integrated）

  婦女運動一向有全球化性格，婦女研究則是20世紀中期婦運的產物，嚴格來說，源自美國大學校園，所以探討台灣的婦女研究不能只把眼光放在台灣，需要放在世界的脈絡中來看。

1970年代前後，年輕女性熱情投入婦運，卻發覺傳統學科沒法回答我們的問題，才感到需要開發女人自己的問題意識、理論和研究方法來開發屬於女人的知識。這是婦女研究的起點，也是婦研界的共識。但是差別在於如何達成目標：婦研應當發展成一個獨立的學術領域，有自己的機構、人事和預算；或者女性主義者應當加入固有的學術領域，從事女性主義觀點的研究，在各學科內部從事改造。這兩種立場也是1985年聯合國在Nirobi舉辦的第三屆世界婦女大會的重要論辯之一。

主張發展獨立的學術領域的人認為婦研需要自己的理論、方法論和方法，若加入傳統學術領域，婦女成為一個研究變項，將無法改變既有的理論、方法論和方法，一個常用的比喻是”add women and stir”，好像做蛋糕，多加一個配料，讓口味更豐富一點而已，無法產生深刻的改變，無法生產新的知識。

女性主義經典選讀 導言 顧燕翎

貓頭鷹出版社出版

　　二十世紀以前人類歷史主要由男人在發聲、在行動、在記錄；女人默默地被觀看、被占用，鮮有主體性思考，更難以流傳後世。女性主義創造了改變的契機，一代接一代，個別的或集體的女人嘗試撥開父權和資本主義陰霾，在陽光裡照見自己，發掘問題，尋找答案，書寫出自己和其他女人的需要和感覺，連結理論，發展行動，終於改變自己和世界。 　　

　　女性主義萌發於十八世紀後半的歐洲，少數女性受自由主義啟發，個人自主意識覺醒，開始以女人的身分發言，爭取自由、平等、獨立，被稱為自由主義女性主義；集結為團體時則傾向於推動體制內改革，史稱婦權運動或女權運動(women’s rights movement)。十九世紀末，社會主義興起，激發了社會主義女性以「合作的集體主義」取代「自私的個人主義」，試圖將女人從家務和個別的家庭生活中解放出來。二十世紀晚期，年輕知識女性反對階級、種族歧視，參與左派陣營，卻發現以民主和平等為號召的男性領導者歧視女性，乃脫離左派，開始深根性別議題、落實民主參與，自稱激進女性主義，或婦女解放運動（婦解，women’s liberation movement）。 

　　女性主義因女性自覺而生，首度從女性觀點看世界，既需要新創理論分析，尤重實踐和成效檢驗。以上三種基本女性主義站在不同立場互相批判、各自反省、也彼此影響，並與外在變動不居的政治、經濟、社會環境互動，發展出更多元、複雜的論點，從追求女性個人主體性、男女平等的出發點，延伸到探究公平正義的社會、政治、經濟結構，乃至人與萬物的關聯、地球生態的永續存活。論述之間有不同立場的對立衝突，也有融合修正；從早期對純粹理想的堅持，對父權規範的敵視，逐漸接受人群之間以及人與萬物互相依存的現實，朝向既重視自由、理性，也珍惜情感和歸屬需求，而願意協商修訂社會規範，當然協商的基礎必須建立在女性群體累積了足夠的政治、經濟、文化實力之上。

　　兩百年來女性主義者持續的努力已經創造了可見的改變，也留下了思辨的紀錄和行動的履痕，本書試圖從多面向重現女性主義者的心路歷程和重要論述。 全書共分八章：一、女性意識覺醒、二、性別角色反思、三、父權管轄的女體、四、女性情欲和同女發聲、五、婦運初心、六、女性主義新世界、七、理論檢驗與重構、八、策略選擇與行動。與舊版相比，本書在理論方面搜集得更完整，多篇譯文也經主編一再校訂，以求更精確傳達作者原意。新增第五章﹤婦運初心﹥，著重在婦女運動的策略和行動，收納了一百多年來從歐美到非洲的婦運宣言，包括個人的、團體的和全球性的（聯合國）。其中非洲婦女的自我反省值得本地女性主義者引為借鑒。新增的第六章﹤女性主義新世界﹥則添加了生態女性主義和女性主義經濟學對當前資本主義經濟模式的檢討。作者們擔心地球資源有限，無限擴展生產和消費、將勞工「家庭主婦化」的結果，不僅剥削南半球人民、拉大貧富差距，更將帶來人類和生態浩劫，因此設法規劃永續生存以及分享與互助的新生活型態。在氣候極端化和病毒肆虐全球的今日，義意特別重大。第七章有關理論部分，增加了對（曾經十分政治正確）的社運的無結構組織型態的反省，也加入了對近期受到矚目的「新自由主義女性主義」的剖析。整體而言，本書涵蓋了女性主義對父權和資本主義社會的分析、批判，婦運的軌跡、自省，也包括前瞻性的另類思考和方案。

臺大經典辯論講座：支持代理孕母在台灣合法化與否？Debate at National Taiwan University on Whether surrogacy should be legalized in Taiwan

臺大經典辯論講座：支持代理孕母在台灣合法化與否？

https://www.facebook.com/NTUSA.Academics/videos/919168668285147/ 
12/19/2018

顧燕翎

         

         這是台大學生會學術部今年12月辦的一場辯論，原有邀請我擔任反方，因為很晚通知，沒有及時看到邀請函，未能出席。後來仔細看了連線，發現辯論中竟然將利他型代孕和商業型代孕混為一談，正方甚至籠統稱之為生育權，並引用國際法規對生育權的保障。但無論消歧公約(1979)或開羅宣言(1994)所稱的生育權，都是指生育者的基本人權，包括決定何時懷孕和政府應保障女性安全、可負擔的懷孕等，並未包含委託別人懷孕的權利和出借子宮的權利。再者，利他型代孕和商業型代孕也有根本的差異，後者將代孕視為一種女性的工作，可以收取酬勞；前者則認為收取酬勞無異出賣女體，有違人權，因此代孕僅能出於利他的動機，嚴禁收取酬勞，僅允許營養、醫療、旅遊（如加拿大）等有限的費用補助，在這些國家商業代孕是違法的。

回應「婦女地位超越男性指日可待」:回答朋友轉來的文章

顧燕翎

(黑字為原文，藍色粗體為我的回覆)

 

你朋友的論述其實很早就存在，波娃寫第二性時(1946-49)以為實現社會主義就可解決婦女問題，但到1970年代改變看法，積極推動婦運。1945年聯合國成立時，男代表們覺得只要成立人權委員會即可，理由也一樣，但女代表（一共四位，包括中華民國一位）堅持要有婦女地位委員會，後來發揮了作用。但整體來說是偏向個人的自由主義，與激進女性主義的理想仍有差距。

 人類傳統男性獨佔教育機會，主導社會的年代已經過去，男女教育機會均等是婦女地位提升的最大因素與保證。

墮胎議題與提拉米蘇的午後——自主學習的跨世代對談

 顧燕翎

         三月上旬意外接到政大附中高一同學曾翌雯的email，邀我四月初與班上三位同學討論墮胎議題，他們「對於墮胎議題有興趣去研究、探討，故將此列為自主學習內容，也願意為此付出更多的努力。」他們希望多聽聽來自不同意見的聲音，讓研究內容更豐富。

矛盾的政策——她是母親還是工具？

顧燕翎 行政院性平會委員

衛福部近年來努力進行兩個生育大法的修訂：人工生殖法和優生保健法，前者將代理孕母合法化，保障不孕夫妻在國內得到低廉的代孕服務，後者則是限縮女性的墮胎自由。兩項作為目的各異，卻同時剝奪了女性的身體自主權。然而，近年來，行政院為了推動性別平等，成立專責機構，動員所有公務員上課學習、填寫表格，並請了國外專家前來檢視成果，人力、物力花費極大，成本不可謂不高，卻產生如此退步的政策結果，顯然政策思考和制度設計出了重大問題。

代孕草案矛盾重重，表面上是在拯救無法生育的婦女，讓她們可以借助其他女人的身體，成為母親。但是代孕者也是女性，且絕大多數社經地位較低，要求她們基於愛心和利他的動機，無償為人懷孕、生產，卻僅能取得基本的損失補償，無異於階級剥削。然而介入代孕的醫事人員、醫療機構、仲介者、廣告商卻卻不必無償服務，他們依舊可以牟利，這是最大的矛盾和性別不正義。

　　草案禁用代理孕母的卵子，但委託者至少有一人提供精或卵，所以主張親權屬於委託夫妻，並稱之為血統真實主義。但若認真追究血統真實性，精卵的主人才是父母，並不必然是委託的夫和妻。大部分代孕合法化的國家，都視代孕者為生母及法律上的母親，委託者需通過收養或准收養手續，孕母有反悔權，以確保她是在自由意志下放棄親權。草案推翻了民法對生母的認定，代孕者不但沒有反悔權，探視權也只有兩年。為什麼只有代孕的女人需要付出愛心？誰來愛她？她是母親，還是工具？

　　現行優生保健法保障懷孕婦女可以依其自願人工流產，實施已近三十年。新的生育保健法草案卻加上強制諮詢及三天等待期之約束。以當今資訊之發達，女性教育程度之提升，懷孕婦女就診前可能已掌握充分資訊。醫院或許可以提供諮商服務做為選項，但強迫諮商和等待則無異於騷擾和侮辱。要不要生、生幾個、何時生，是女性最基本的生育權和人權，若連基本人權都不保，性平政策、性平法律、性平機制為何存在？

 　　兩個生育大法的修正案於此時同時推出，共同的理由可能是為了提高生育率，但實際上可能增加的出生人數十分有限，卻犧牲了女性的基本人權和國家的性平政策。自相矛盾是行政最大的浪費和最讓人扼腕之事。

 

 

The Role of Marie Curie (Sex and Gender in Taiwan Part II)

2020/02/07 

Yenlin Ku to the NAER

Attached are the minutes of the meeting organized by the Executive Yuan on the translation of sex and gender. It arrived yesterday. Regrettably the NAER Bilingual Committee's suggested translation of "Members of each sex shall constitute no less than one-third of the membership of the committee/commission." was not adopted. During the discussion, one mentioned that this committee was openly opposed to the change of the  name from 居理夫人 to 瑪麗居理 two years ago, indicating that its members were gender insensitive. Another said that the Third CEDAW International Review Committee was unaware of the progressiveness of gender agenda in Taiwan and therefore prejudiced. 

This process reflects the absence of open and fair discussion on the issues of sex and gender in Taiwan. It is exactly what the CEDAW committee insightfully pointed out but the government failed to realize after spending so much budget and human power in organizing the meetings.

But I am still grateful for the efforts you and the NAER Bilingual Committee have made. We all have tried to make contributions to our society. 

Thank you,

yenlin

 

 

「性」與「性別」英文用詞專家學者諮詢小組會議紀錄 Minutes of the Experts Meeting on the Usage of Sex and Gender Called by the Executive Yuan (Sex and Gender in Taiwan Part II)

 壹、  時間：110年1月22日（星期五）下午2時

貳、   地點：本院第七會議室

參、   主持人：吳處長秀貞                          紀錄：蔡宏富

肆、   出(列)席人員：詳如簽到表

伍、   主席致詞：略。

陸、   報告事項：略。

柒、   討論案：

第1案：我國法律和政策文件用詞有關「性」與「性別」之英文用詞檢視結果之其他疑義，請討論案。

決議：

一、   有關中文「性別」之英譯無法統一翻譯為sex或gender，應視法律內容脈絡判斷。至有關委員所提總統副總統選舉罷免法等疑義，併於討論案第2案就各相關法規內容討論。

二、   有關任一性別人數(代表)不得少於三分之一之英譯，維持現行性平處提供之CEDAW第3次國家報告結論性意見與建議第10點及第11點有關「性」與「性別」英文檢視原則內容版本，未來因應性別內涵之進程再作不同英譯處理考量。另刪除該檢視原則之註釋2文字。

[[1] 包含性別比例、任一性別、單一性別比例、任一性別比例、任一性別人數等文字。

[2] 本項英文翻譯以委員會之委員為例，任一性別人數(代表)不得少於三分之一，原則為「性別」英譯成「gender」，其他依法遴聘（派）學者專家、民間團體及相關機關代表提供諮詢所辦理之相關諮詢會議亦同。此處性別之認定以身分證件之性別欄位為認定原則。]

第2案：有關各部會依本處提供英文(譯)之檢視原則辦理法規檢視作業之結果，請討論案。

決議：

一、   法規涉及須提供個人資料記載「性別」者，基於不同國家證件之性別英譯可能為sex或gender，爰該類法規之「性別」英譯為sex/gender，以利實務運作順暢。

二、   專家學者其他修正建議彙整如附件，並由性平處另函請相關部會依本次會議決議再行修正。

捌、   散會。（下午5時15分）

法規之性與性別英譯檢視結果之專家學者檢視意見

目錄

教育部國家教育研究院雙語詞彙審譯會建議 Suggestions made by the NAER (Sex and Gender in Taiwan Part II)

 

  

編號	中文	英文	審議結論
1	性別	Gender	gender (心理性別/社會性別) sex (生理性別)
2	性傾向	Sexual orientation	sexual orientation
3	性侵害	Sexual assault	sexual assault
4	性騷擾	Sexual harassment	sexual harassment
5	性霸凌	Sexual bullying	sexual bullying
6	性別認同	Gender identity	gender identity
7	性別特質	Gender traits	sex trait(s)/characteristic(s) (生理) gender trait(s) /characteristic(s) (心理)
8	性別歧視	Gender discrimination	sex-based discrimination; sex discrimination (對生理性別的歧視) gender-based discrimination; gender discrimination (對心理/社會性別的歧視)
9	任一性別[1]人數(代表)不得少於三分之一	Neither gender should occupy less than one-third of the seats of the committee/commission	Members of each sex shall constitute no less than one-third of the membership of the committee/commission.

 

Barrister Whittle's comments on the "sex and gender" discussion and Yenlin Ku's Response (Sex and Gender in Taiwan Part II)

2021/01/16

Dear All, 

As the fruit of several hours of research, here are my preliminary comments re the ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ discussion:

 First, it is notable that the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) does not use the term ‘gender’ at all.  In Article 1, it defines ‘discrimination’ as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex …” In Article 5, it calls for the elimination of prejudices and practices “which are based on the idea of the superiority or inferiority of either of the sexes …” All of its other provisions refer to ‘men’ and ‘women’, avoiding the use of ‘sex’, ‘sexes’ and ‘gender’.

 

General Recommendation No. 28 of CEDAW’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Woman repeatedly refers to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women “on the basis of sex and gender” – thus stressing the distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in this context. This distinction is highlighted by the call on states to take steps to achieve “sex non-discrimination and gender equality in practice” – i.e., no discrimination on the basis of biological sex, and equality in respect of gender identity. To clarify this distinction, the report states as follows:

Although the Convention only refers to sex-based discrimination, interpreting article 1 together with articles 2 (f) and 5 (a) indicates that the Convention covers gender-based discrimination against women. The term ‘sex’ here refers to biological differences between men and women. The term ‘gender’ refers to socially constructed identities, attributes and roles for women and men and society’s social and cultural meaning for these biological differences resulting in hierarchical relationships between women and men and in the distribution of power and rights favouring men and disadvantaging women.

 This subject was helpfully examined by the European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-discrimination, whose report titled Gender Equality Law in Europe was published by the European Commission in January 2019. On page 10 of this report, under the subheading of “Sex/gender/transgender”, it states:

EU law does not provide definitions of the concepts of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and ‘transgender’, and does not distinguish clearly between sex and gender. Similarly, very few countries define the concepts of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and/or ‘transgender’ in their legislation. Finland, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, and Sweden are exceptions. In the Finnish Act on Equality Between Men and Women, a new subsection defines what is meant by gender identity and expression of gender. Article 10 of the Serbian Gender Equality Act defines both sex and gender: ‘sex’ relates to biological features of a person, while ‘gender’ means socially established roles, position and status of women and men in public and private lives from which, due to social, cultural and historic differences, discrimination ensues on the basis of biologically belonging to a sex. Romania recently (2015) introduced definitions of sex and gender, as well as ‘gender stereotypes’ in its Gender Equality Law, whereby gender is understood to mean the combination of roles, behaviours, features and activities that society considers to be appropriate for women and men. In Sweden, the Discrimination Act defines sex as the fact “that someone is a woman or a man.” Maltese law includes definitions of ‘gender expression’ and ‘gender identity’. 

In light of these authorities, I would suggest:

1.     Strictly speaking, 性別 should be translated as ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’, even though both terms are commonly used interchangeably in English-speaking countries, with ‘gender’ having perhaps already become more commonly used than ‘sex’ for indicating whether one is male or female. [Note: According to Wikipedia, the use of ‘gender’ in place of ‘sex’ as a biological classification can be traced to the 1980s, officially adopted in 1993 when the US Food and Drug Administration started to use ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’; however, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using ‘sex’ as the biological classification and ‘gender’ as “a person’s self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual’s gender presentation.”]

2.     To cover the situation of those whose biological sex is not definitively male or female, or who do not identify with their birth sex, or who are undergoing or have undergone transition, 性別認同 should be translated as ‘gender identity’, since the identification is more with the construct of gender than with the biological fact of sex. This also allows for identification as gender neutral.

3.     I’d say that 性別特質 might be translated as either ‘sex trait(s)’ or ‘gender trait(s)’ since it could refer to trait(s) of either biological sex or gender construct.

4.     性別歧視 might be translated as both ‘sex discrimination’ and ‘gender discrimination’ (or ‘sex-based discrimination’ and ‘gender-based discrimination’, as used in the above-cited General Recommendation No. 28).

5.     性傾向， 性侵害， 性騷擾 and 性霸凌  are appropriately translated, respectively, as ‘sexual orientation’, ‘sexual assault’, ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘sexual bullying’, since they refer to sexual behavior rather than maleness versus femaleness.

6.     任一性別人數（代表）不得少雨三分之一  should be translated as “Members of each sex shall occupy no less than one third of the seats of the committee/commission” or “Members of each sex shall constitute no less than one-third of the membership of the committee/commission.” (Note: In laws and regulations, 應 and 不得 should be translated respectively as ‘shall’ and ‘shall not’ rather than ‘should’ or ‘should not’, since they are prescriptive rather than suggestive.)

Peter

2021/01/17

Yenlin to the NAER

 I am grateful that you accepted my unruly request for review in your first meeting of 2021 in spite of the fact, as reminded by Jerome, that you usually only review terms, phrases and very specific requests. I have to give Peter my heartfelt gratitude for his research on the legal history of the usage of sex and gender in Europe. His precision in the choice of words is impressive.

For your reference, the 9 protected characteristics under the UK Equality Act 2010 are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex. And under the 2008 Swedish Discrimination Act (revised in 2014), they are: sex, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation and age. In the foreseeable future of human society, I believe sex will remain an important characteristic.

Another related question will be can we translate sex as 生理性別 and gender as 社會性別 or 心理性別, especially when they appear in pairs such as "sex and gender"? After all, the distinct concept of gender was widely spread by the radical feminists in the US in the 1970s. It appears more often in English to Chinese translations than vise versa.

yenlin