將LGBTQI+譯成 「多元性別」的權力運作 ( From “LGBTQI+” to “Multiple Genders ”: The Power Play Behind an Ambiguous Term)

 顧燕翎

　　英文原文LGBTQI+是一個列舉式的名詞，是某些特定社群（女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀、跨性別、酷兒、雙性人及其他）的組合，通常用在社會運動中的身份認同。它有明確的邊界，爭取的是「特定少數群體」的權利。中文翻譯成 「多元性別」，卻是一個抽象且內容未經明定的名詞。在字面上，它已脫離了原文，僅指「性別的多種樣貌」，更接近英文的＂gender diversity＂，但實際使用時卻有時包含性別少數(TQI)、性傾向少數(LGB)及其他，也有時刪減其中部分群體成為LGBTI，呈現不穩定的狀態。這個主導性別政策的核心術語，未經法律定義，郤任由少數「性別專家」獨占定義權，背後隱藏了多個層次的權力運作：

一. 概念的「模糊化」與「去邊界化」

　　當政策對象從「具體群體」變成「抽象概念」時，因為意義模糊不明，其詮釋權就掌握在定義者手中，少數「專家」通過政府的性平機制掌控名詞的使用和定義權，隨意在其中添加或減少項目，而無需經過大眾討論，卻左右了全國性別政策。

二. 從「權利保障」轉向「本體論重構」

　　LGBTQI+ 政策的初衷在保護這些特定群體不受到歧視或暴力對待，並享有平等的法律權利，但在譯成中文的過程中，經手者陳倉暗渡、重塑大眾認知，重新定義了大眾熟悉的概念「性別」。在中文語境裡，「多元」是一個具有道德高度的詞彙，幾乎等同於「包容」與「進步」，若有人表示異議，便極易掉入「排斥包容」、「反對進步」的語言陷阱，受到攻擊。

　　從表面看來，多元因為「多」，似乎試圖涵蓋全體人類，但是在實際使用時，占人口絕大多數的男女卻因為被「進步人士」歸類為落伍的二元性別而被剔除於多元性別之外，以致行政院性平會舉辦多元性別影像展時排除了男女參展者；甚至在政府的文獻中，廣泛禁止使用「男女」和「兩性」這些詞彙，必須使用「性別」，方屬政治正確。

　　結果是原本意在保護少數、邊緣人士的政策，經由翻譯和名詞轉換，暗地裡改變了性別的基本定義：LGBTQI+變成「多元性別」，多元性別再簡化為性別，取代「男女」和「兩性」，不知不覺中取消了以生理為基礎的男女分類，也形成少數壓倒多數的態勢。社會大眾被迫變成了根據「性別認同」(gender identity)來定義和分類的「順男」和「順女」（「順性別男、女」）；公務員不斷被強制接受性別教育。教育部則大力在學校推動多元性別教育，由於意義模糊，聽起來正面且無害，家長不明就裡，無從理解或質疑，也無從參與。

三.「定義權真空」帶來政治套利

　　進步人士／性別專家透過控制語言來控制思想，進而控制政策。當一個名詞被刻意保持在「未定義」或「流動」的狀態時，它就成了一個免於受監督的行政黑箱。因為沒有法律定義的邊界，主其事者可以在不經過立法程序、不徵詢公眾意見的情況下，將極具爭議的新概念（如：生理性別並不存在）透過不需立法的指導手冊或行政命令塞進「多元性別」這個大籃子裡。這個名詞在使用時，不但理所當然地抹去男女，也有時為了政治方便而暫時抹去Ｑ和＋(酷兒及其他)，例如在性平會的第五次消歧公約國家報告中多元性別加註為LGBTI。結果公眾原本理解的可能是支持男女平權、不歧視同性戀和性別少數，卻在無意識中「被同意」了整套（他們無所悉的）激進的性別解構理論，接受了全新的社會規範。

　　在法律與政策中，模糊性就是權力，可以用來規避問責：如果「多元性別」有死板的法律定義，當政策出問題時，公眾可以依法追究。但如果這個在法律上不存在、卻在行政上大行其道的「幽靈名詞」從未被正式定義，主事者隨時可以推托：「你誤解了，我們的『多元』不是那個意思。」

　　模糊性也可以用來排除異己，掌控行政權：既然定義權在「進步的專家」手中，任何人試圖要求釐清定義、或是提出不同見解，就會被貼上「思想落伍」、「不夠進步」或「歧視」的標籤。這種標籤化是權力爭奪中高效的攻擊武器。意義不明的術語也成為「進步人士」的文化資本，藉此將自己與「保守的」群眾做出區隔。

四.　誰是專家？什麼是進步？

　　進步必須建立在「透明」與「包容」的基礎上，不幸「多元性別」這個性別政策的核心術語卻是既不透明，且由少數精英獨佔定義權、排除異己，所以也不包容。結果是各「專家委員會」的組成名單高度重疊，只有認同這套扭曲翻譯、用詞「正確」的人才能獲得解釋政策、撰寫指南、接受補助、指導公務機構和審查其工作績效的機會，也只有這些專家才有權力認可其他人的專家身份。而不定義、拒絕公開討論正是這套權力結構持續擴張的燃料。

                 這已經不只是性別議題，也成為民主體制的危機。

For Whom Is Taiwan’s Gender Policy? ---- Preparing for the Fifth CEDAW Report

Yenlin Ku

In July 2025, the Executive Yuan held a civil society consultation in preparation for the fifth national report on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), due for submission next year. The terms used in the report expanded beyond women to include gender, transgender women, LGBTI+, plural genders, sex and gender, gender-friendly, among others. A notable issue was the lack of definitions for these terms. These concepts and terms, absent from the original CEDAW, were introduced without explanation of their relevance to the Convention’s primary focus: women. For years, civil society groups have asked for definitions of "gender" and "plural genders." Again, the organizers of the consultation did not address the questions directly. They just implied that such terms could be found in the General Recommendations of CEDAW.  

 

The Directorate-General of Personnel Administration declared 2012 as the "Year of Gender Equality" in an effort to “align with international standards.” This initiative marked a shift in official terminology from “women” to "gender" in policy documents and ignited subsequent renaming of women's rights promotion commissions to gender equality commissions. In 2020, the Executive Yuan's Department of Gender Equality issued a directive in the form of a bilingual terminology chart mandating that the Chinese term "性別" (which can mean either gender or sex) be translated as "gender" in English, effectively excluding the use of "sex."  This decision was likely a response to concerns raised by international reviewers in the third CEDAW report regarding the ambiguous use of terminology by the government. Over the past decades, the contentious KMT and the DPP administrations both adopted the term “plural genders” (多元性別), but refrained from providing a formal definition. The motivation poses an interesting avenue for further research.

 

How important and relevant is the concept of gender in public policy? Many people may dismiss it a trivial matter. However, since the 20th century, a growing number of laws and policies have been enacted to regulate public and private life through the lens of gender. These policies impact interactions between individuals and institutions, compelling states and employers, for instance, to eliminate gender discrimination under agreements like CEDAW. Given that gender is now deeply intertwined with both public and private life, and that the government voluntarily takes up high-profile, quadrennial reviews of Taiwan’s gender policies with their invited international experts, shouldn’t the terminology and meanings used in the national report and related laws be sufficiently clear and consistent? After all, clarity and consistency are crucial for fostering productive discussion, building consensus, and enabling citizens to adjust their behavior and hold each other accountable under these laws? 

This raises another question: Is it reasonable to require citizens to rely on external interpretations—like CEDAW’s general recommendations --without thorough public discussion or explanation of new and unfamiliar concepts and regulations? As the Executive Yuan is working on its draft for the Anti-Discrimination Law, it remains to be seen whether the handling of gender terminology will continue to be vague and ambiguous without informing the general public.    

I am not a ciswoman

Yenlin Ku, May 2024

Recently I filled out an application form for a seminar on mental health and sexual violence in Taipei. The gender section offers three options: cisgender female (the Chinese translation meaning conforming female), cisgender (conforming) male, and other. After some consideration, I chose "other". Definitely I am not male. I am female, but nonconforming. For half a century I've been a feminist, dedicated to breaking the social constrains set upon women. Am I not a woman if I refuse to follow the stereotype of “woman”? Sojourner Truth’s centuries-old question: “Ain’t I a Woman?” echoes in my head, though we asked the same question for different reasons.

Dissent on the conclusions made in the “ Experts Meeting on the Usage of Sex and Gender” called by the Department of Gender Equality, Executive Yuan on January 22, 2021 (Taiwan)

 Yenlin Ku  2022/11/24

(retired and working professor of women and gender studies, former and present member of government gender equality committees, former chair of Awakening Foundation, etc.)

I’m the “gender expert holding different opinions” in the 2021 meeting the Department of Gender Equality (DGE) referred to in its response to the issue of translation of sex and gender between Chinese and English. In that meeting I submitted the suggestions made by the Bi-lingual Translation Committee of the National Academy for Educational Research (NAER) at my formal request. Unfortunately, the suggestions were turned down in favor of the original decisions made by the DGE and its experts. Here are my standpoints:

1. The 3^rd CEDAW IRC (International Review Committee)’s concern that “the inappropriate conceptual and practical use of the terms ‘sex‘ and ‘gender‘ in Taiwan” does exist and has caused confusion and damage to the government, society and education. 

 2. I support the IRC’s suggestion that “The term’sex’ 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 favoring men and disadvantaging women.＂

3. I believe the IRC’s recommendation that “the Government to align all the legislative texts and policy documents and promote the correct and consistent understanding of the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in line with CEDAW Convention and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 28.” is urgently needed in Taiwan today.

4. Underneath is a chart combined of translations made by the DGE and the NAER for the sake of comparison:

NO.	Chinese	DGE’s translation	NAER’s translation
1	性別	Gender	gender (psychological/social) sex (biological)
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) (physical) Gender trait(s) / characteristic(s) (心理)
8	性別歧視	Gender discrimination	sex-based discrimination; sex discrimination; gender-based discrimination;  gender discrimination
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.

 5. Furthermore, I agree with the recent recommendations made by the IRC’s reviews on human rights conventions in Taiwan: 

Terminology and Translation 

30. The Review Committee expresses its concern that confusion is created by the incorrect translations of certain terms from English to Chinese and Chinese to English, such as equality and gender diversity. In particular, the Committee is concerned that the Chinese term ‘平等’ is translated as both equality and equity, as shown in the Gender Equality Employment Act and the Gender Equity Education Act. Also, the Committee is concerned that gender diversity is translated as ‘multiple sex’, which is not correctly conveying the meaning of diverse gender. 

31. The Committee recommends that the Government solve this problem by only using the term ‘equality’, changing the English title of the Gender Equity Education Act by replacing ‘equity’ with ‘equality’ and applying the correct translation for gender diversity and other terminology involving gender. The Committee recommends that the correct terms and their meanings are commonly understood by government agencies, media and the general public. 

Review of the Third Reports of the Government of Taiwan on the Implementation of the International Human Rights Covenants

Concluding Observations and Recommendations adopted by the International Review Committee 

ICESCR｜經濟社會文化權利國際公約

ICCPR｜公民與政治權利國際公約

Taipei, 13 May 2022

 

中華民國CEDAW第4次國家報告(初稿)

書面意見單

 

報告點次	1.1  2020年經邀集行政院性別平等會委員及專家學者召開會議討論確認，中文「性別」包含生理及社會性別之意涵，無須修正相關中文法規用語，僅需檢視法規英譯之正確性。此外，行政院性別平等處已依CEDAW及第28號一般性建議之意旨，製作相關法規英譯原則，並上網公開涉及「性」與「性別」之中英文名詞對照表，請各部會就所主管法規進行檢視，並將檢視結果提供各部會性別平等專案小組委員確認。2021年邀集有不同意見之部會性別平等專案小組委員及專家學者討論各部會檢視結果，並進行英譯原則之確認。未來涉及「性」與「性別」之法規英譯將參照上述英譯原則及對照表辦理1。【性平處】
姓名	顧燕翎
服務單位	前婦女新知基金會董事長、台大婦女研究室研究員、交大教授
職稱	教授
電子郵件
建議內容： 一、  對報告點次之建議(請具體說明俾利權責機關據以新增、刪除或修改點次內容)： 消歧公約(CEDAW)在導言中即言明： 為了實現男女充分的平等，需要同時改變男子和婦女在社會上和家庭中的傳統任務。因此，締約各國必須努力改變個人行為的社會和文化模式，以消除基於性別而分尊卑觀念或基於男女定型任務的偏見、習俗和一切其他做法。 此公約之基本精神在責成各國政府落實男女平等，公約之所有條文也是以此為目的，所稱性別即男女之別。   　　由於國內部分人士自創之「多元性別」一詞已造成政策混淆，在消歧公約(CEDAW)第三次國家報告之國際審查會議中，多個民間團體提案，要求政府在概念上和用法上採取消歧公約(CEDAW)對於「生理性別」(sex)及「社會性別」(gender)之定義，勿以意義不明確的「多元性別」取代消歧公約中的「女」、「男」，得到國際審查委員會充分的理解和認可。   國際審查委員在結論中表示：審查委員會關切台灣在「生理性別」（sex）與「社會性別」（gender）二詞在概念上與實際上的不當運用。在消歧公約(CEDAW) 法理中，公約提及基於生理性別的歧視，但亦涵蓋對女性基於社會性別的歧視。「生理性別」意指男女生理上的差異；「社會性別」意指社會建構的男女身分、歸屬和角色，以及社會賦予這些生理差異的社會文化意義，導致男女之間的階層關係以及權力和權利的分配有利於男性而不利於女性。    　　審查委員會並正式建議臺灣政府依照消歧公約(CEDAW) 和消歧公約(CEDAW)委員會第28號一般性建議，統一所有法律和政策用詞，並促進對「生理性別」與「社會性別」正確、一致之認知。   　可惜性平處召開會議討論審查委員會建議時，皆未邀請最初提案之民間團體、跨性別女性，亦未能正視審查委員的建議，並且不採納教育部國家教育研究院雙語辭彙審譯會的書面建議(gender譯為心理性別/社會性別，sex 譯為生理性別)，只是將認知和定義問題簡化為名詞中翻英有誤差，決議由性平處做出一份名詞中翻英的對照表，（但未同時提供英翻中對照表，）結果將國際委員所稱的＂sex and gender"中的”sex”完全消除了，統一將所有法規和公文中的性別都翻譯為”gender”，也就是消去生理性別，只有社會性別。　   　　這樣做法不僅違反了消歧公約(CEDAW)的原則，也完全沒有回應第三次國際審查委員會的建議。請性平處在第四次國家報告國際審查會議舉辦之前，廣納民間團體及國際審查委員會的意見及時做出修正，真正落實民主與平等。   二、         對政策之建議：
報告點次	10.52 《性別平等教育法》所定義的性別不僅在關切範疇中包含了CEDAW框架的生理性別(sex)和性別(gender)面向，也將國際人權公約保障的其他身份或交叉性因素的性別認同、性傾向直接納入，且女性、男性皆得保障，更明言性別特徵、性別特質，真正由所有不同性別群體的需求出發，且實際施行上從未造成混淆，向來均以所有不同性別群體的equality為最終目標，該法所追求之性別平等內涵，遠超過CEDAW框架僅限女性達到與男子一樣權利的性別平等。【教育部】
姓名	顧燕翎
服務單位	前婦女新知基金會董事長、台大婦女研究室創室研究員、交大教授
職稱	教授
電子郵件
建議內容： 一、  對報告點次之建議(請具體說明俾利權責機關據以新增、刪除或修改點次內容)： 1.    CEDAW框架中涵蓋sex和gender。如果sex是「生理性別」，gender就應是「社會性別」。在消歧公約的文本和委員之結論性意見與建議中，這二詞都是並用的，並未以Gender 取代 Sex。教育部使用的「生理性別(sex)和性別(gender)」正反映了國際審查委員會所說的「概念上與實際上的不當運用」。 2.   《性別平等教育法》並未定義「多元性別群體」, 若只是挪用和改用性別一詞, 而自認超前於國際人權公約, 則缺乏法源依據。 3.   請教育部尊重民主和法治, 在未有充分且公開的討論、未經完整的立法程序之前, 勿受少數人操控,自創名詞,自做解釋, 誤導國民認知。教育部需要做民主和法治的表率。
繳交方式： 1.    請於7/20(二)前提供本書面意見單，逾期不候。請寄至 hjtwwang@ey.gov.tw ，郵件標題請註明[CEDAW書面意見]，或傳真至(02)2356-8733。 2. 書面意見將由行政院性別平等處統一提供各權責機關，並公布於行政院性別平等會網站供各界參考。