學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 「免術換證」對女性安全空間「威脅」的網路言說分析
Internet Discourse Analysis on the ‘Risk’ to Women’s Safe Space Posed by ‘Gender Recognition without Surgery’作者 羅映青
Luo, Ying-Ching貢獻者 方念萱
羅映青
Luo, Ying-Ching關鍵詞 跨性別
女性安全空間
性別批判女性主義
跨性別女性主義
論述分析
transgender
women’s safe space
gender critical feminism
transfeminism
discourse analysis日期 2024 上傳時間 4-九月-2024 15:04:40 (UTC+8) 摘要 2021年，台灣首次出現跨性別者透過行政訴訟得以免術換證的案例，「免術換證」的概念始為一般網友所認識。網友擔心待政府立法全面通過免術換證後，將壓縮順性別女性的基本權益與生活空間，尤其可能威脅女性日常使用廁所等「女性安全空間」時的安危。因此網友開始在X（原推特）等社群中發起連署並積極討論免術換證，希望能延緩或停止推行此政策。本研究分析X網友的言說，探究反對免術換證者如何認知男性、女性，以及女性日常遭逢的危殆，並且藉言說實踐建構出跨性別女性與順性別女性之間互相對立、難以共存的世界觀，合理化藉著保護順性別女性之名，排除跨性別女性的行為。 本研究以「免術換證」作為關鍵字，搜集2021年10月至2023年12月期間X網友的推文，再採用批判論述分析中的社會認知取徑，針對其中包含「安全空間」、「陰莖」等相關字眼的推文進行分析。研究發現網友討論度最高的三個話題分別為：（一）以廁所為首的女性安全空間區隔男女的必須性；（二）陰莖帶來的威脅以及女性日常的危殆感；（三）順性別女性身為「女人」感受到的相對剝奪感。根據這三個話題，歸納出反免術換證網友常用的言說策略包含：使用「我尊重，但是⋯⋯」的句型，一方面口頭承認跨女的身份認同，一方面重申性別還是要依生殖器而定；刻意混同「噁男」與「跨女」的概念，將所有具有陰莖者皆視作可能犯罪的男人；強調順女被跨運壓迫卻仍勇於面對的形象，凸顯跨女任性並且只想享受特權的形象。 研究發現，反免術網友因「陰莖恐慌」的心理，將女性在社會上遭逢侵害一律歸因於陰莖的存在，由此建立起有陰莖者等同於男人的論述，並且正當化順性別女性對跨性別女性的恐懼與排斥，鞏固唯有排除陰莖、排除跨女才能保護順女免於侵害的邏輯。反免術者主張保護女性的權益，言詞中卻反而重新維繫了二元性別秩序的霸權，建立一套排除他者的「女人」規範，恐導致對女性身體與形象的監管越來越嚴密。
In 2021, a Taiwanese trans woman successfully obtained official gender recognition on her identity card through administrative litigation without undergoing gender-affirming surgery, marking the first successful case of “gender recognition without surgery” in Taiwan. This event brought the concept of “gender recognition without surgery” to the forefront of public awareness in Taiwan. Netizens expressed concerns that if the government enacts legislation allowing gender recognition without surgery across all domains, it could infringe upon the basic rights and living spaces of cis women, particularly endangering their safety in “women’s safe spaces” such as public restrooms. As a result, netizens initiated petitions and engaged in active discussions on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), with the aim of delaying or halting the law’s implementation. This study explores the discourse of netizens on X, running through how opponents of gender recognition without surgery perceive men, women, and the dangers women face in daily life. Additionally, the study examines how this discourse constructs a worldview in which trans women and cis women are positioned in opposition, rendering coexistence challenging and rationalizing the exclusion of trans women under the pretext of protecting cis women. The study collected tweets from October 2021 to December 2023 using the keyword “gender recognition without surgery”. Through the application of the socio-cognitive approach within critical discourse analysis, the study further examines these tweets, focusing on those with related terms such as “safe space” and “penis”. The study then identifies three primary topics of discussion among netizens: (1) the recognized necessity of gender segregation in women’s safe spaces, particularly restrooms; (2) the perceived threat posed by the presence of penis and the sense of danger women experience daily; and (3) the relative deprivation experienced by cis women in being a “women”. Based on these three topics, the study identifies and summarizes the discursive strategies commonly employed by netizens opposed to gender recognition without surgery. These strategies include: using the phrase “I respect transgender, but…” to verbally acknowledge the identity of trans women while simultaneously reaffirming that gender should still be determined by genitalia; deliberately conflating the concepts of “male harasser” and “trans women”, thereby treating anyone with a penis as a potential criminal; and emphasizing the image of cis women as being oppressed by transgender rights movements yet courageously confronting the threat, while depicting trans women as willful and merely seeking privileges. The study results indicated that netizens who opposed gender recognition without surgery, driven by “penis panic”, attribute all forms of harm experienced by women in society to the presence of the penis. This perspective establishes a discourse that equates those with a penis to men, thereby justifying cis women’s fear and exclusion of trans women. It reinforces the logic that only by excluding those with a penis, and therefore excluding trans women, can cis women be protected from harm. While these opponents claim to protect women’s rights, their discourse reinforces the hegemony of the gender binary, creating a normative definition of “woman” that excludes others. This could potentially lead to increasingly stringent surveillance of women’s bodies and images.參考文獻 女性擔憂國外負面案例，伴侶盟：法律不保障漫無邊際的恐懼（2021年10月17日）。No Self ID。https://noselfidtw.cc/news/tapcpr-womens-fear-is-irrational-and-boundless/ 內授中戶字第0970066240號令（2008）。內政部全球資訊網。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/001/Upload/OldFile/law_file/0971107-1.doc 王孝勇（2020）。「謝尖順事件」之媒體語藝框架分析：「跨性別國家主義」的觀點。台灣社會研究季刊，117，47-111。 王孝勇（2023）。當「珍」就好：《珍的故事》的變性敘事及其性／別意識之批判語藝分析。台灣社會研究季刊，0(125)，67-125。 丘愛芝（2020）。多元性別權益保障種子訓練教材——認識陰陽人（雙性人）議題及其處境。行政院性別平等處。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/8B53584DC50F0FBA/54ea414c-a60e-4916-8af3-24d276dae0d6 台灣同志諮詢熱線（2023）。台灣跨性別族群生活處境報告。台灣同志諮詢熱線。https://hotline.org.tw/news/3408 台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟（無日期）。一起認識跨性別。伴盟跨性別平權站。https://transgender.tapcpr.org/ 江河清（2018年11月20日）。同性婚姻行不行？——「另立專法」背後的文字遊戲。法律白話文運動。https://plainlaw.me/posts/748001 行政院（2022）。「性別變更要件法制化及立法建議」研究案。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/File/641C9A1CEFC38DB0/609f345c-7b49-4f77-a3c4-d2d028f02502?A=C 行政院環境保護署（無日期）。行政院環境保護署性別平等推動計畫（108 至 111 年）。環境部。https://www.moenv.gov.tw/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=D5D6FD87792D9328&P=0800ec82-9104-4a4e-ae37-1a7c50ecbbc9 何春蕤（2002）。認同的「體」現：打造跨性別。台灣社會研究季刊，46，1-43。 何春蕤（2003）。「性／別壓迫」：跨性別主體在台灣。在何春蕤（主編），跨性別（頁73-122）。中央大學性／別研究室。 吳欣紜（2021年7月3日）。長庚大學跨性別案 民團：判決肯定性別認同應受保障。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202107030086.aspx 李秉芳（2023年12月28日）。網紅小玉「Deepfake換臉A片」獲利千萬元，二審改判5年徒刑不得易科罰金。關鍵評論。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/146232 林書伃、畢恆達、彭渰雯（2013）。男女廁之外的「其他」——世新大學「無性別廁所」之經驗評估與省思。女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，32，43-96。https://doi.org/10.6255/JWGS.2013.32.43 社團法人台灣彩虹平權大平台協會（2023）。行政院「我國多元性別（LGBTI）者生活狀況調查」研究案（S1101013A）。行政院性別平等委員會。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/A741C28EBA3EBEA9/89136e15-a948-4f86-9184-b07824ea7daa 社團法人台灣衛浴文化協會（2016）。性別友善廁所設計手冊之研究（PG105010777）。內政部全球資訊網。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvT2xkRmlsZV9BYnJpX0dvdi9yZXNlYXJjaC8yNTcxLzE0ODY2OTc4OTh4ZWE3MjAucGRm&n=MDLmgKfliKXlj4vlloTlu4HmiYDoqK3oqIjmiYvlhorkuYvnoJTnqbYt5oiQ5p6c5aCx5ZGKKOimj%2BWumuagvOW8j%2BeJiCkoMTA2MDEyM%2BS%2FrikgKDEpLnBkZg%3D%3D 柚子旅人（2022年4月10日）。只為特定團體喉舌的世新性別變更法制化研究案。No Self ID Taiwan。https://noselfidtw.cc/post/biased-survey-results-of-gra/ 為什麼要推動免術換證？（2023年12月14日）。伴侶盟。https://transgender.tapcpr.org/archives/6476 茉莉希蕾烤星星。[chan_yuxing].（2023年4月11日）。明年大選的主題還是〔總統〕什麼港湖之類的都只是配菜，在不願意把票投給什麼免術換證還是背骨仔之餘...不要忘記你還是要投一個你能接受的總統，拿我來說就是“投給一個還有把台灣的尊嚴擺出來的總統”這是我身為一個台灣人最基礎的義務然後支持陳柏惟在民進黨不分區繼續努力。https://twitter.com/chan_yuxing/status/1645683968342388736 倪炎元（2018）。論述研究與傳播議題分析。五南圖書。 栗子。[KK1994Wu].（2023年4月10日）。我的原文是寫「如果民進黨&支持者的性別意識堪比國民黨、中共，那我為什麼要支持民進黨？現在當然是還沒到那個程度......（後面還有）」「不爽不要支持，寫出來是怎樣」OK好至少這次開除我台灣籍（台派籍？）的看起來不是外國白人啦。https://twitter.com/KK1994Wu/status/1645302299416469505 高鉦詠（2022年5月14日）。台大學生自治現場：惡搞無罪、反串有理？分不清玩笑界線的「性平委員選舉」。換日線。https://crossing.cw.com.tw/article/16213 國家教育研究院（無日期）。特權。樂詞網。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/5185f270be92bdb7afa961ead64d9706/ 教育部性別平等委員會（2022年6月23日）。校園性別友善廁所及宿舍設置指引。性別平等教育全球資訊網。https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/index.php/m2/m2_03_03_01?sid=27 陳怡靜（2018年08月13日）。台中一中教師曾愷芯變性3週年 回憶婚後的最甜蜜時光。鏡週刊。https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20180810pol001 陳冠勳、謝其文（2021年7月15日）。拒跨性別求職者使用女廁挨罰30萬 公司提行政訴訟遭判決敗訴。公視新聞網。https://news.pts.org.tw/article/535450 陳美華、蔡靜宜（2013）。說些醫生想聽的話——變性評估的性／別政治。台灣人權學刊，2(2)，3-39。 陳薇真（2016）。台灣跨性別前史：醫療、風俗誌與亞際遭逢。跨性別倡議站。 麥擱編（2021年3月11日）。前進世界月經大會：跨性別者有月經。月亮褲古慕慕。https://goodmoonmood.com/%E5%89%8D%E9%80%B2%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E6%9C%88%E7%B6%93%E5%A4%A7%E6%9C%83%EF%BC%9A%E8%B7%A8%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E8%80%85%E4%B9%9F%E6%9C%89%E6%9C%88%E7%B6%93/ 彭渰雯（2006）。從女廁運動到無性別廁所：一個參與者的反省。性別平等教育季刊，34，78-84。 黃宥寧（2022年11月1日）。鬍渣男毛巾遮身「生殖器夾腿」闖溫泉女湯 被逮硬掰：我是女生。ETtoday新聞雲。https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221111/2377899.htm 跨性別要求變更性別取消強制手術小E案，全面勝訴！（2021年9月28日）。伴侶盟。https://tapcpr.org/hot-news/2021/09/28/%EF%BC%9A%E8%B7%A8%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82%E8%AE%8A%E6%9B%B4%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E5%8F%96%E6%B6%88%E5%BC%B7%E5%88%B6%E6%89%8B%E8%A1%93%E5%B0%8Fe%E6%A1%88-%E5%85%A8%E9%9D%A2%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4 臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第275號判決（2021）。司法院裁判書系統。https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/default.aspx 劉珮瑄（2020）。跨性別研究作為婦女研究？文化研究季刊，171，66-78。 關於本站（無日期）。No Self ID Taiwan。https://noselfidtw.cc/about/ 蘇孟娟、林惠琴、李欣芳（2015年4月8日）。50歲男師變性 中一中挺到底。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/paper/869661 顧燕翎（2020）。台灣婦女運動：爭取性別平等的漫漫長路。貓頭鷹。 Banks, T. (1990). Toilets as feminist issue: true story. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 6(2), 263-290. Billard, T. J. (2023). “Gender-Critical” Discourse as Disinformation: Unpacking TERF Strategies of Political Communication. Women’s studies in communication, 46(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2023.2193545 Browne, K. (2004). Genderism and the Bathroom Problem: (re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gender, Place & Culture, 11(3), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369042000258668 Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge. Butler, J. (2024). Who’s Afraid of Gender. Farrar Strauss & Giroux. Colliver, B., & Coyle, A. (2020).‘Risk of sexual violence against women and girls’ in the construction of ‘gender-neutral toilets’: a discourse analysis of comments on YouTube videos. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 4(3), 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868020X15894511554617 Delphy, C. (1993). Rethinking sex and gender. Women’s studies international forum, 16(1), 1-9. Ðordevic ́, J. P. (2020). The sociocognitive dimension of hate speech in reader’s comments on Serbian news websites. Discourse, Context & Media, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100366 Earles, J. (2019). The “Penis Police”: Lesbian and Feminist Spaces, Trans Women, and the Maintenance of the Sex/ Gender/Sexuality System. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 23(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2018.1517574 Feinberg, L. (1992). Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come. World view forum. Fikejzova, M., & Charvat, M. (2022). Who’s the ‘real’ transgender? The representation and stereotyping of the transgender community on YouTube. Res Rhetorica, 9(2), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2022.2.1 Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). Introduction. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 1-10). Routledge. Fritz, M., & Mulkey, N. (2021, April 1). The rise and fall of gender identity clinics in the 1960s and 1970s. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. https://bulletin.facs.org/2021/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-gender-identity-clinics-in-the-1960s-and-1970s/#Wave_of_clinics_providing_GAS Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and society, 4(3), 301-331. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656722 Goffman, E. (1987). Gender Display. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Gender Advertisements (pp.1-9). Harper torchbooks. Hines, S. (2019). The feminist frontier: on trans and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411791 Hines, S. (2020). Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminism. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934684 Jones, C., & Slater, J. (2020). The toilet debate: Stalling trans possibilities and defending ‘women’s protected spaces’. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 834-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934697 Kogan, T. S. (1997). Transsexuals and critical gender theory: the possibility of restroom labeled other. Hastings Law Journal, 48(6), 1223-1256. Koyama, E. (2003). The transfeminist manifesto. In R. Dicker & Piepmeier, A (Eds.), Catching a wave: reclaiming feminist for the twenty-first century. Northeastern university press. https://eminism.org/readings/pdf-rdg/tfmanifesto.pdf Lewis, S. (2019, February 7). How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. Temple Smith. Overall, C. (2007). Public Toilets: Sex Segregation Revisited. Ethic & the Environment, 12(2), 71-91. Peng, Y., & Wu, W. (2023). Who would (not) use all-gender toilets... and why? A study on university students in Taiwan. Gender, Place and Culture, 30(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2021.1987198 Perry , L. (2021, July 28). It’s still possible to “cancel” gender-critical feminists, but this strategy won’t work. The New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/07/it-s-still-possible-cancel-gender-critical-feminists-strategy-won-t-work Raymond, G. J. (1979). The Transsexual Empire: the Making of the She-Male (1994 ed.). Beacon Press. Riddle, C. (2006). Divided sisterhood. A critical review of Janice Raymond’s the transsexual empire. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (pp. 144–158). Routledge. Rothblatt, M. (2011). Justice and Gender: the Milestones Ahead. In N. Mayer (Ed), From Transgender to Transhuman (2nd., pp.85-98). Martine Rothblatt Rudin, J., Billing, T., Farro, A., & Yang, Y. (2023). When are trans women treated worse than trans men? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(6). https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2021-0195 Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2015). Bathroom battlegrounds and penis panics. Context, 14(3), 26-31. Shaw, D. (2023). A tale of two feminisms: gender critical feminism, trans inclusive feminism and the case of Kathleen Stock. Women’s history review, 23(5), 768-780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915 Slovenko,R. (1978). On answering the call of nature. Wayne Law Review, 24(4), 1555-1560. Stock, K. (2021). Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. Fleet. Stone, S. (1987). The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto (2014 ed.). Sandy Stone. https://sandystone.com/empire-strikes-back.pdf Stryker, S. (1998). The transgender issue: an introduction. GLQ: a Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 4(2), 145-158. http://read.dukeupress.edu/glq/article-pdf/4/2/145/415469/ddglq_4_2_145.pdf Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender History: the Roots of Today’s Revolution (2nd ed). Seal press. Stryker, S., & Bettcher, T. M. (2016). Introduction/trans/feminisms. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1-2), 5-14. Stryker, S., & Currah, P. (2014). Introduction. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-2), 1-18. van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243-289. van Dijk, T. (1997). The Study of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 1, pp. 1-34). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884 van Dijk, T. (2006) . Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159-177. van Dijk, T. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Discourse Studies (3rd, pp.62-85). Sage. Wang, X., & Zhao, X. (2023). From growth obsession to ecological promotion: The discursive construction of party image in Chinese political discourse on ecological civilization. Discourse & Communication, 17(6), 741-763. Doi: i1.o0r.g1/107.711/177/5107450841831233213118811080 West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-151. Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender and Society, 28(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203 Whittle, S. (2006). Where did we go wrong? Feminism and trans, two teams on the same side. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (pp. 194–202). Routledge. Wirtz, A. L., Poteat, T. C., Malik, M., & Glass, C. (2020). Gender-based violence against transgender people in the United States: a call for research and programming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018757749 Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Discourse Studies (3rd, pp.2-21). Sage. Women’s Declaration International. (2019). Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights. WDI. https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/ Women’s Declaration International. (2021, September). WDI statement on our language. WDI. https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/about/use-language/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
110464007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110464007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 方念萱 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 羅映青 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Luo, Ying-Ching en_US dc.creator (作者) 羅映青 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Luo, Ying-Ching en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2024 15:04:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2024 15:04:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2024 15:04:40 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0110464007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153403 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 110464007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 2021年，台灣首次出現跨性別者透過行政訴訟得以免術換證的案例，「免術換證」的概念始為一般網友所認識。網友擔心待政府立法全面通過免術換證後，將壓縮順性別女性的基本權益與生活空間，尤其可能威脅女性日常使用廁所等「女性安全空間」時的安危。因此網友開始在X（原推特）等社群中發起連署並積極討論免術換證，希望能延緩或停止推行此政策。本研究分析X網友的言說，探究反對免術換證者如何認知男性、女性，以及女性日常遭逢的危殆，並且藉言說實踐建構出跨性別女性與順性別女性之間互相對立、難以共存的世界觀，合理化藉著保護順性別女性之名，排除跨性別女性的行為。 本研究以「免術換證」作為關鍵字，搜集2021年10月至2023年12月期間X網友的推文，再採用批判論述分析中的社會認知取徑，針對其中包含「安全空間」、「陰莖」等相關字眼的推文進行分析。研究發現網友討論度最高的三個話題分別為：（一）以廁所為首的女性安全空間區隔男女的必須性；（二）陰莖帶來的威脅以及女性日常的危殆感；（三）順性別女性身為「女人」感受到的相對剝奪感。根據這三個話題，歸納出反免術換證網友常用的言說策略包含：使用「我尊重，但是⋯⋯」的句型，一方面口頭承認跨女的身份認同，一方面重申性別還是要依生殖器而定；刻意混同「噁男」與「跨女」的概念，將所有具有陰莖者皆視作可能犯罪的男人；強調順女被跨運壓迫卻仍勇於面對的形象，凸顯跨女任性並且只想享受特權的形象。 研究發現，反免術網友因「陰莖恐慌」的心理，將女性在社會上遭逢侵害一律歸因於陰莖的存在，由此建立起有陰莖者等同於男人的論述，並且正當化順性別女性對跨性別女性的恐懼與排斥，鞏固唯有排除陰莖、排除跨女才能保護順女免於侵害的邏輯。反免術者主張保護女性的權益，言詞中卻反而重新維繫了二元性別秩序的霸權，建立一套排除他者的「女人」規範，恐導致對女性身體與形象的監管越來越嚴密。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In 2021, a Taiwanese trans woman successfully obtained official gender recognition on her identity card through administrative litigation without undergoing gender-affirming surgery, marking the first successful case of “gender recognition without surgery” in Taiwan. This event brought the concept of “gender recognition without surgery” to the forefront of public awareness in Taiwan. Netizens expressed concerns that if the government enacts legislation allowing gender recognition without surgery across all domains, it could infringe upon the basic rights and living spaces of cis women, particularly endangering their safety in “women’s safe spaces” such as public restrooms. As a result, netizens initiated petitions and engaged in active discussions on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), with the aim of delaying or halting the law’s implementation. This study explores the discourse of netizens on X, running through how opponents of gender recognition without surgery perceive men, women, and the dangers women face in daily life. Additionally, the study examines how this discourse constructs a worldview in which trans women and cis women are positioned in opposition, rendering coexistence challenging and rationalizing the exclusion of trans women under the pretext of protecting cis women. The study collected tweets from October 2021 to December 2023 using the keyword “gender recognition without surgery”. Through the application of the socio-cognitive approach within critical discourse analysis, the study further examines these tweets, focusing on those with related terms such as “safe space” and “penis”. The study then identifies three primary topics of discussion among netizens: (1) the recognized necessity of gender segregation in women’s safe spaces, particularly restrooms; (2) the perceived threat posed by the presence of penis and the sense of danger women experience daily; and (3) the relative deprivation experienced by cis women in being a “women”. Based on these three topics, the study identifies and summarizes the discursive strategies commonly employed by netizens opposed to gender recognition without surgery. These strategies include: using the phrase “I respect transgender, but…” to verbally acknowledge the identity of trans women while simultaneously reaffirming that gender should still be determined by genitalia; deliberately conflating the concepts of “male harasser” and “trans women”, thereby treating anyone with a penis as a potential criminal; and emphasizing the image of cis women as being oppressed by transgender rights movements yet courageously confronting the threat, while depicting trans women as willful and merely seeking privileges. The study results indicated that netizens who opposed gender recognition without surgery, driven by “penis panic”, attribute all forms of harm experienced by women in society to the presence of the penis. This perspective establishes a discourse that equates those with a penis to men, thereby justifying cis women’s fear and exclusion of trans women. It reinforces the logic that only by excluding those with a penis, and therefore excluding trans women, can cis women be protected from harm. While these opponents claim to protect women’s rights, their discourse reinforces the hegemony of the gender binary, creating a normative definition of “woman” that excludes others. This could potentially lead to increasingly stringent surveillance of women’s bodies and images. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 研究背景 1 第二章 文獻探討 11 第一節 何謂女性：性別批判女性主義者與跨性別女性主義者之爭 11 2-1-1 變性與跨性別的意涵 11 2-1-2 性別批判女性主義者與跨性別女性主義者之爭 14 第二節 重探女性定義與身體的關係 19 2-2-1 重探「性（sex）」與「性別（gender）」定義 19 2-2-2 做性別（doing gender）／消解性別（undoing gender） 22 2-2-3 台灣學界與民間的跨性別論述 26 第三節 台灣的廁所改革：從女廁運動到無性別廁所 32 2-3-1 女廁平權運動 32 2-3-2 從女廁到無性別廁所中的性別檢驗 36 第三章 研究方法與分析文本 44 第一節 研究取徑：批判論述分析的社會認知取徑 44 第二節 平台特性及文本搜集步驟 49 第四章 X社群的語料分析 57 第一節 廁所區隔男女的必須性 58 4-1-1 廁所內的隱私論述 59 4-1-2 廁所資源與需求問題 65 4-1-3 女性在廁所內的人身安全 74 第二節 具威脅性的陰莖與女性的危殆感 80 4-2-1 辨別或混同「噁男」與「跨女」 81 4-2-2 從「跨女」到「噁男」到「男人」 87 4-2-3 不同空間情境下的陰莖 93 第三節 受壓迫的順性別女性 97 4-3-1 順性別女性遭受犧牲 98 4-3-2 跨性別女性的「特權」 107 第五章 結論與討論 116 第一節 研究結論 117 5-1-1 有陰莖等同男人的論述 117 5-1-2 順性別女性的恐懼與相對剝奪感 120 5-1-3 建構排除陰莖的合理性 121 第二節 反思理論概念 123 第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 126 參考文獻 129 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3005231 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110464007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨性別 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 女性安全空間 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 性別批判女性主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨性別女性主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 論述分析 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) transgender en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) women’s safe space en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) gender critical feminism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) transfeminism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) discourse analysis en_US dc.title (題名) 「免術換證」對女性安全空間「威脅」的網路言說分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Internet Discourse Analysis on the ‘Risk’ to Women’s Safe Space Posed by ‘Gender Recognition without Surgery’ en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 女性擔憂國外負面案例，伴侶盟：法律不保障漫無邊際的恐懼（2021年10月17日）。No Self ID。https://noselfidtw.cc/news/tapcpr-womens-fear-is-irrational-and-boundless/ 內授中戶字第0970066240號令（2008）。內政部全球資訊網。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/001/Upload/OldFile/law_file/0971107-1.doc 王孝勇（2020）。「謝尖順事件」之媒體語藝框架分析：「跨性別國家主義」的觀點。台灣社會研究季刊，117，47-111。 王孝勇（2023）。當「珍」就好：《珍的故事》的變性敘事及其性／別意識之批判語藝分析。台灣社會研究季刊，0(125)，67-125。 丘愛芝（2020）。多元性別權益保障種子訓練教材——認識陰陽人（雙性人）議題及其處境。行政院性別平等處。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/8B53584DC50F0FBA/54ea414c-a60e-4916-8af3-24d276dae0d6 台灣同志諮詢熱線（2023）。台灣跨性別族群生活處境報告。台灣同志諮詢熱線。https://hotline.org.tw/news/3408 台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟（無日期）。一起認識跨性別。伴盟跨性別平權站。https://transgender.tapcpr.org/ 江河清（2018年11月20日）。同性婚姻行不行？——「另立專法」背後的文字遊戲。法律白話文運動。https://plainlaw.me/posts/748001 行政院（2022）。「性別變更要件法制化及立法建議」研究案。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/File/641C9A1CEFC38DB0/609f345c-7b49-4f77-a3c4-d2d028f02502?A=C 行政院環境保護署（無日期）。行政院環境保護署性別平等推動計畫（108 至 111 年）。環境部。https://www.moenv.gov.tw/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=D5D6FD87792D9328&P=0800ec82-9104-4a4e-ae37-1a7c50ecbbc9 何春蕤（2002）。認同的「體」現：打造跨性別。台灣社會研究季刊，46，1-43。 何春蕤（2003）。「性／別壓迫」：跨性別主體在台灣。在何春蕤（主編），跨性別（頁73-122）。中央大學性／別研究室。 吳欣紜（2021年7月3日）。長庚大學跨性別案 民團：判決肯定性別認同應受保障。中央社。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202107030086.aspx 李秉芳（2023年12月28日）。網紅小玉「Deepfake換臉A片」獲利千萬元，二審改判5年徒刑不得易科罰金。關鍵評論。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/146232 林書伃、畢恆達、彭渰雯（2013）。男女廁之外的「其他」——世新大學「無性別廁所」之經驗評估與省思。女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，32，43-96。https://doi.org/10.6255/JWGS.2013.32.43 社團法人台灣彩虹平權大平台協會（2023）。行政院「我國多元性別（LGBTI）者生活狀況調查」研究案（S1101013A）。行政院性別平等委員會。https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/A741C28EBA3EBEA9/89136e15-a948-4f86-9184-b07824ea7daa 社團法人台灣衛浴文化協會（2016）。性別友善廁所設計手冊之研究（PG105010777）。內政部全球資訊網。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvT2xkRmlsZV9BYnJpX0dvdi9yZXNlYXJjaC8yNTcxLzE0ODY2OTc4OTh4ZWE3MjAucGRm&n=MDLmgKfliKXlj4vlloTlu4HmiYDoqK3oqIjmiYvlhorkuYvnoJTnqbYt5oiQ5p6c5aCx5ZGKKOimj%2BWumuagvOW8j%2BeJiCkoMTA2MDEyM%2BS%2FrikgKDEpLnBkZg%3D%3D 柚子旅人（2022年4月10日）。只為特定團體喉舌的世新性別變更法制化研究案。No Self ID Taiwan。https://noselfidtw.cc/post/biased-survey-results-of-gra/ 為什麼要推動免術換證？（2023年12月14日）。伴侶盟。https://transgender.tapcpr.org/archives/6476 茉莉希蕾烤星星。[chan_yuxing].（2023年4月11日）。明年大選的主題還是〔總統〕什麼港湖之類的都只是配菜，在不願意把票投給什麼免術換證還是背骨仔之餘...不要忘記你還是要投一個你能接受的總統，拿我來說就是“投給一個還有把台灣的尊嚴擺出來的總統”這是我身為一個台灣人最基礎的義務然後支持陳柏惟在民進黨不分區繼續努力。https://twitter.com/chan_yuxing/status/1645683968342388736 倪炎元（2018）。論述研究與傳播議題分析。五南圖書。 栗子。[KK1994Wu].（2023年4月10日）。我的原文是寫「如果民進黨&支持者的性別意識堪比國民黨、中共，那我為什麼要支持民進黨？現在當然是還沒到那個程度......（後面還有）」「不爽不要支持，寫出來是怎樣」OK好至少這次開除我台灣籍（台派籍？）的看起來不是外國白人啦。https://twitter.com/KK1994Wu/status/1645302299416469505 高鉦詠（2022年5月14日）。台大學生自治現場：惡搞無罪、反串有理？分不清玩笑界線的「性平委員選舉」。換日線。https://crossing.cw.com.tw/article/16213 國家教育研究院（無日期）。特權。樂詞網。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/5185f270be92bdb7afa961ead64d9706/ 教育部性別平等委員會（2022年6月23日）。校園性別友善廁所及宿舍設置指引。性別平等教育全球資訊網。https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/index.php/m2/m2_03_03_01?sid=27 陳怡靜（2018年08月13日）。台中一中教師曾愷芯變性3週年 回憶婚後的最甜蜜時光。鏡週刊。https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20180810pol001 陳冠勳、謝其文（2021年7月15日）。拒跨性別求職者使用女廁挨罰30萬 公司提行政訴訟遭判決敗訴。公視新聞網。https://news.pts.org.tw/article/535450 陳美華、蔡靜宜（2013）。說些醫生想聽的話——變性評估的性／別政治。台灣人權學刊，2(2)，3-39。 陳薇真（2016）。台灣跨性別前史：醫療、風俗誌與亞際遭逢。跨性別倡議站。 麥擱編（2021年3月11日）。前進世界月經大會：跨性別者有月經。月亮褲古慕慕。https://goodmoonmood.com/%E5%89%8D%E9%80%B2%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E6%9C%88%E7%B6%93%E5%A4%A7%E6%9C%83%EF%BC%9A%E8%B7%A8%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E8%80%85%E4%B9%9F%E6%9C%89%E6%9C%88%E7%B6%93/ 彭渰雯（2006）。從女廁運動到無性別廁所：一個參與者的反省。性別平等教育季刊，34，78-84。 黃宥寧（2022年11月1日）。鬍渣男毛巾遮身「生殖器夾腿」闖溫泉女湯 被逮硬掰：我是女生。ETtoday新聞雲。https://www.ettoday.net/news/20221111/2377899.htm 跨性別要求變更性別取消強制手術小E案，全面勝訴！（2021年9月28日）。伴侶盟。https://tapcpr.org/hot-news/2021/09/28/%EF%BC%9A%E8%B7%A8%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82%E8%AE%8A%E6%9B%B4%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E5%8F%96%E6%B6%88%E5%BC%B7%E5%88%B6%E6%89%8B%E8%A1%93%E5%B0%8Fe%E6%A1%88-%E5%85%A8%E9%9D%A2%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4 臺北高等行政法院109年度訴字第275號判決（2021）。司法院裁判書系統。https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/default.aspx 劉珮瑄（2020）。跨性別研究作為婦女研究？文化研究季刊，171，66-78。 關於本站（無日期）。No Self ID Taiwan。https://noselfidtw.cc/about/ 蘇孟娟、林惠琴、李欣芳（2015年4月8日）。50歲男師變性 中一中挺到底。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/paper/869661 顧燕翎（2020）。台灣婦女運動：爭取性別平等的漫漫長路。貓頭鷹。 Banks, T. (1990). Toilets as feminist issue: true story. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 6(2), 263-290. Billard, T. J. (2023). “Gender-Critical” Discourse as Disinformation: Unpacking TERF Strategies of Political Communication. Women’s studies in communication, 46(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2023.2193545 Browne, K. (2004). Genderism and the Bathroom Problem: (re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gender, Place & Culture, 11(3), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369042000258668 Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge. Butler, J. (2024). Who’s Afraid of Gender. Farrar Strauss & Giroux. Colliver, B., & Coyle, A. (2020).‘Risk of sexual violence against women and girls’ in the construction of ‘gender-neutral toilets’: a discourse analysis of comments on YouTube videos. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 4(3), 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868020X15894511554617 Delphy, C. (1993). Rethinking sex and gender. Women’s studies international forum, 16(1), 1-9. Ðordevic ́, J. P. (2020). The sociocognitive dimension of hate speech in reader’s comments on Serbian news websites. Discourse, Context & Media, 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100366 Earles, J. (2019). The “Penis Police”: Lesbian and Feminist Spaces, Trans Women, and the Maintenance of the Sex/ Gender/Sexuality System. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 23(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2018.1517574 Feinberg, L. (1992). Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come. World view forum. Fikejzova, M., & Charvat, M. (2022). Who’s the ‘real’ transgender? The representation and stereotyping of the transgender community on YouTube. Res Rhetorica, 9(2), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2022.2.1 Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). Introduction. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 1-10). Routledge. Fritz, M., & Mulkey, N. (2021, April 1). The rise and fall of gender identity clinics in the 1960s and 1970s. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. https://bulletin.facs.org/2021/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-gender-identity-clinics-in-the-1960s-and-1970s/#Wave_of_clinics_providing_GAS Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and society, 4(3), 301-331. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656722 Goffman, E. (1987). Gender Display. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Gender Advertisements (pp.1-9). Harper torchbooks. Hines, S. (2019). The feminist frontier: on trans and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411791 Hines, S. (2020). Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminism. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 699-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934684 Jones, C., & Slater, J. (2020). The toilet debate: Stalling trans possibilities and defending ‘women’s protected spaces’. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(4), 834-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120934697 Kogan, T. S. (1997). Transsexuals and critical gender theory: the possibility of restroom labeled other. Hastings Law Journal, 48(6), 1223-1256. Koyama, E. (2003). The transfeminist manifesto. In R. Dicker & Piepmeier, A (Eds.), Catching a wave: reclaiming feminist for the twenty-first century. Northeastern university press. https://eminism.org/readings/pdf-rdg/tfmanifesto.pdf Lewis, S. (2019, February 7). How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. Temple Smith. Overall, C. (2007). Public Toilets: Sex Segregation Revisited. Ethic & the Environment, 12(2), 71-91. Peng, Y., & Wu, W. (2023). Who would (not) use all-gender toilets... and why? A study on university students in Taiwan. Gender, Place and Culture, 30(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2021.1987198 Perry , L. (2021, July 28). It’s still possible to “cancel” gender-critical feminists, but this strategy won’t work. The New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/07/it-s-still-possible-cancel-gender-critical-feminists-strategy-won-t-work Raymond, G. J. (1979). The Transsexual Empire: the Making of the She-Male (1994 ed.). Beacon Press. Riddle, C. (2006). Divided sisterhood. A critical review of Janice Raymond’s the transsexual empire. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (pp. 144–158). Routledge. Rothblatt, M. (2011). Justice and Gender: the Milestones Ahead. In N. Mayer (Ed), From Transgender to Transhuman (2nd., pp.85-98). Martine Rothblatt Rudin, J., Billing, T., Farro, A., & Yang, Y. (2023). When are trans women treated worse than trans men? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(6). https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2021-0195 Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2015). Bathroom battlegrounds and penis panics. Context, 14(3), 26-31. Shaw, D. (2023). A tale of two feminisms: gender critical feminism, trans inclusive feminism and the case of Kathleen Stock. Women’s history review, 23(5), 768-780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915 Slovenko,R. (1978). On answering the call of nature. Wayne Law Review, 24(4), 1555-1560. Stock, K. (2021). Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. Fleet. Stone, S. (1987). The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto (2014 ed.). Sandy Stone. https://sandystone.com/empire-strikes-back.pdf Stryker, S. (1998). The transgender issue: an introduction. GLQ: a Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 4(2), 145-158. http://read.dukeupress.edu/glq/article-pdf/4/2/145/415469/ddglq_4_2_145.pdf Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender History: the Roots of Today’s Revolution (2nd ed). Seal press. Stryker, S., & Bettcher, T. M. (2016). Introduction/trans/feminisms. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1-2), 5-14. Stryker, S., & Currah, P. (2014). Introduction. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-2), 1-18. van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243-289. van Dijk, T. (1997). The Study of Discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 1, pp. 1-34). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884 van Dijk, T. (2006) . Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159-177. van Dijk, T. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Discourse Studies (3rd, pp.62-85). Sage. Wang, X., & Zhao, X. (2023). From growth obsession to ecological promotion: The discursive construction of party image in Chinese political discourse on ecological civilization. Discourse & Communication, 17(6), 741-763. Doi: i1.o0r.g1/107.711/177/5107450841831233213118811080 West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125-151. Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender and Society, 28(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203 Whittle, S. (2006). Where did we go wrong? Feminism and trans, two teams on the same side. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader (pp. 194–202). Routledge. Wirtz, A. L., Poteat, T. C., Malik, M., & Glass, C. (2020). Gender-based violence against transgender people in the United States: a call for research and programming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018757749 Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Discourse Studies (3rd, pp.2-21). Sage. Women’s Declaration International. (2019). Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights. WDI. https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/ Women’s Declaration International. (2021, September). WDI statement on our language. WDI. https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/about/use-language/ zh_TW
