【翻譯】 一份揭露跨權遊說者策略的文件：沒有任何在暗影中作成的政策，可以在陽光下存活。

圖片取自kissCC0免費素材庫

作者：James Kirkup

翻譯：柚子旅人

網址：The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists

譯者前言：這是一篇登在Spectator的文章，這篇文章或許可以幫助我們了解，為何台灣的跨性別政策在短時間內以驚人速度推進，從1988年前無任何性別變更管道，到2021年眾人才驚覺即將釋憲迎接免術換證。雖然這是一份教導各國NGO如何默默通過小孩可以「不用父母或是任何人同意」就可以「自行決定變性」法案的文件，但是鑒於LBGTQ+團體時常互相觀摩學習，而英國制度又領先於台灣大約十年，台灣現在面對某些NGO推行免術換證、自由換證制度，因此本文頗有參考價值。

 

A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly? 有大量的跨性別辯論至今未有解答。其中，少數的小型組織在公共機構、政治人物與公部門間取得主流影響的速度，是最令人不解的層面之一。這些特定意識形態是如何在驟然間，在這麼多地方佔據了優勢地位？

 

People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them. 在十年前，人們和各組織對跨性別議題沒有明確的政策，甚至對於跨性別議題沒有認識，然而現在他們卻狂熱地擁抱非二元性別與性別轉換，提供性別中立廁所和其他被要求用以容納跨性別者、促進跨性別族群利益的措施。與其他事情相比，這些轉變震驚了許多人。他們想知道這是怎麼發生的，以及為何看起來沒有任何人問過他們的意見，或考慮過這些改變會如何影響他們。

 

Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter. 某些主體用令人震驚的勁頭擁抱這些改變：警方並非以自由開放著稱，但他們現在卻成為了急先鋒，甚至到了檢視我們使用的代名詞的程度，並騷擾在推特上說錯了話的年長女士。

譯註：指沒有正確的用跨性別者希望的方式代稱他們，例如使用he稱呼一個跨女（Male to Female，MtF，指生理男性但自我認同為女性，在外國自由換證或免術換證制度下，他們不一定有進行變性手術或賀爾蒙療法，意即他們可能保有男性生殖器並有男性化外表）

 

How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status. 我們怎麼走到這一步的？我認為我們可以將概念化約為，這是對組織跟隨著社會變動的簡單疑問。說白了，社會大眾至今對於跨性別主義仍然並不十分理解。如果你在倫敦中心的特定部門工作，住在大學城中（或正在讀大學），或有個在學的孩子（很有可能是小學中高年級生），你可能會有些直覺印象。但我敢打賭大多數的人不認識任何跨性別者，而且也對跨性別者法律地位應該如何改革沒有什麼完整的想法。

 

So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere? 所以還是那個問題：這些資源有限的小型組織，到底是如何在英國及英國以外的世界各地，（在跨權運動上）取得如此令人震驚的勝利？

譯註：有關跨權運動在外國的現狀，可參考《默默換走》一文中外國現狀的部分。

 

Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question. 感謝法律網站Roll On Friday，我現在找到了一份能幫助回答這個問題的文件。

譯註：Roll On Friday是一個英國網站，是一個設計給從法律系學生到律師的法律界人士使用的網站。大概類似於台灣的法源法律網。

 

The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views. 這份文件是Dentons（大成律師事務所，台灣亦有據點）、Thomson Reuters Foundation（湯森‧路透基金會）和International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation（IGLYO，國際LGBTQI青年與學生組織）的作品。Dentons自稱是世界上最大的法律事務所，Thomson Reuters Foundation是傳統媒體龍頭的分支機構，其在不同管道投入身分認同議題。Dentons和Thomson Reuters Foundation均註明此文件並不代表他們的立場。

 

The report is called 'Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth'. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. 'We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,' says the foreword. 這個報告標題名為「僅限成人？推動年輕人性別變更法律的良好策略」。其目的是幫助各國家的跨性別族群變更法律，使兒童可以在不經成人同意，也不需任何主管機關的認可下，合法的更改他們的性別（gender）。報告前言寫道，「我們希望這份報告會成為社會運動者及NGO的有力工具，幫助他們在歐洲其及他各地推廣年輕跨性別者的權益。」　

 

As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and 'advocacy' across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares 'best practice' in 'lobbying' to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender. 就如你預期一個由大型法律事務所員工共同寫成的報告會有的，這是一份堅實的全方位文件，摘要了來自各國的法律、政策和「倡議」現狀。基於世界各地跨權團體的貢獻（包含兩個英國的跨權團體，其中一個未具名），它蒐集並分享了改變法律、使家長對他們孩子要變更法律上性別（gender）無權表達意見時，「政治遊說」的「最佳策略」。

譯註：具名一個的是Stonewall石牆，是英國的LBGTQ+權利組織，也是歐洲最大的LBGTQ+權利組織。

 

In the words of the report: 這份報告中寫道：

 

'It is recognised that the requirement for parental consent or the consent of a legal guardian can be restrictive and problematic for minors.' 「眾所周知，（在變更法定性別上）要求取得家長或法定監護人的同意，對未成年人來說可能過於限制他們的權利，問題重重。」

 

You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to 'restrict' the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report. 你或許會認為，親權行使的目的，一部分正是在於「限制」孩子自己做出選擇──那些在定義上屬於「受過充分告知資訊的成年人」才能做的選擇。但這不是這份報告的立場。

 

Indeed, it suggests that 'states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.' 實際上，這份報告建議「國家應該採取行動，以剝奪家長決定權的方式，阻止家長介入年輕跨性別者的自由發展。」

 

In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations. 簡單地說，這是一份作戰手冊，寫給那些想要移除家長（在孩子作出生命中重大決定前）同意權的倡議團體。一份由國際大型法律事務所寫成，並得到全球最大慈善組織背書的作戰手冊。

 

And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished? 而關於推行法案，作者們是如何建議的？

 

I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention. 我想這些建議很有大篇幅摘出的價值，因為這是我第一次實際在公共論壇上看到這些以文字記錄下來；也因為我認為，任何對公共政策如何作成、對政治如何運作有興趣的人，都應該對此留意。

 

Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda: 在這份報告中，宏觀來看，對於推動跨權進展最佳的辦法如下：

 

'While cultural and political factors play a key role in the approach to be taken, there are certain techniques that emerge as being effective in progressing trans rights in the "good practice" countries.' 「雖然文化跟政治因素對於議題推動有所影響，但在跨權推動「實踐良好」的國家，還是可以找出特定技巧有效進行推動。」

譯註：原文”good practice”加上引號有嘲諷意味，直白一點可以翻成『跨權推動「做得好棒棒」的國家』。

 

Among those techniques: 'Get ahead of the Government agenda.' 這些技巧之一：「領先於政府政策。」

 

What does that mean? Here it is in more detail: 這是什麼意思？以下有更多細節：

 

'In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposal before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal than if they intervene after the government has already started to develop its own proposals.'

「在許多NGO倡導議題的活動中我們發現，讓NGO在議題上掌控、領先於政府，在政府有時間發展出自己的法案前先作出或發展前衛的立法要求，（在推動議題上）有明顯助益。NGO須盡可能及早介入立法過程，在立法程序「開始」前介入是最理想的。相較於政府開始發展自身的立法後介入，這會大幅給予NGO形塑政府政策、影響最終法案的能力。」

 

That will sound familiar to anyone who knows how a Commons select committee report in 2016, which adopted several positions from trans groups, was followed in 2017 by a UK government plan to adopt self-identification of legal gender. To a lot of people, that proposal, which emerged from Whitehall looking quite well-developed, came out of the blue. 對任何知道2016年下議院精選會議報告的人來說，這聽起來很熟悉：那份報告採納了數個跨權團體的提案，接著在2017年，英國政府根據報告採納了self-id的法律性別制度。對很多人來說，這個從白廳出現的、看似完整的法案，十分讓人出乎意料。

譯註：Whitehall，白廳，是英國中央政府中樞所在地，延伸為英國政府的代名詞。self-identification，縮寫為self-id，中文大約為性別自我認同。性別自我認同是一個概念，即一個人的合法性別或性別應由其性別認同決定，而無需任何醫療要求。

 

Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: 'Tie your campaign to more popular reform.' 總而言之，文件還提出另一個技巧：「將你的議題與另一個更被接受的改革綑綁在一起。」

 

For example: 舉例而言：

'In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.'

「在愛爾蘭、丹麥和挪威，性別身份的修法與其他更被接受的改革，例如同性婚姻，被同時推動。這提供了一層面紗作為保護，特別是在愛爾蘭。在愛爾蘭，同性婚姻被強力支持，但是性別身分依舊是個難以得到大眾支持的議題。」

 

I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is 'difficult to win public support for' and best hidden behind the 'veil of protection' provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description. 我在這兒加上粗體，因為我認為這有強調的必要。這是一個「難以得到大眾支持」，而且最好躲在比較被接受的議題（例如同志權益）的「面紗保護」後的議題。再一次的，任何人只要稍微注意一下英國的跨性別辯論，就會注意到這件事。

譯註：請注意在台灣的同志婚姻與跨性別換證是怎麼推動。另外請注意，某些NGO一再強調換證時手術要件的痛苦，卻避免提及他們的最終目的是「不手術、不荷爾蒙治療、不精神鑑定」的自由換證（以當事人意願自由進行法律性別變更）

 

Another recommendation is even more revealing: 'Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.' 其他建議就更露骨了：「避免多餘的媒體揭露與曝光。」

 

According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more 'exposure' this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been: 根據這份報告，那些快速移除家長同意權、增進跨權的國家，就是遊說團體推動議題時，成功阻止大眾認識他們主張的國家。相比之下，例如英國，這個議題越多「曝光」，他們的成功率較低：

 

'Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.

In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.' (Emphasis added).

另一個有強烈效果的技巧是，限制媒體揭露與曝光。在特定國家如英國，法律性別身分改革的資訊遭到主流媒體曲解，反對聲浪因此興起……。鑒於此背景，許多人相信公開活動對於議程推廣是有害的，因為普羅大眾對於跨性別議題沒有深刻理解，因此容易產生曲解。

在愛爾蘭，跨權倡議人士直接對個別政治人物進行遊說，並避免媒體曝光以盡可能減少此一阻礙。（加強提醒）

譯註：相較於其他推動免術換證或自由換證的國家，英國似乎是目前較多「踩剎車」或「補破網」消息的國家：英國剛完成了跨性別監獄，並且在2020年12月，英國法院裁定禁止16歲以下兒童使用青春期阻斷劑（一種用於治療性早熟的藥物，如字面意義所述，用於阻斷青春期發育。跨權支持者認為，青春期阻斷劑可以使跨性別者避免發展原生性別的第二性徵，減緩他們性別不安的痛苦；反對者認為，青春期阻斷劑用於性早熟以外的目的是標籤外使用，且停止發育將造成不可逆後果，不宜使思慮不周的兒童、青少年使用；且使用後，日後縱使要進行變性手術，也會因為性器官發育不全而無法進行變性）
英國高等法院裁定：未了解變性風險前，禁16歲以下兒童施打激素

 

Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages. 僅管它對「如何讓跨權議題保持在大眾關注之外」提出了延伸建議，這份報告卻鮮少提到倡議者如一般大眾一樣，進行說服性寫作的可行性。實際上，「說服大家這是個好點子」這件事，在這份多達65頁的報告裡並沒有多加著墨。

 

I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents. 我不會告訴你，我對於這個報告或是這個議題的感想。我沒有要對它或它的作者們發表任意見。我只是試著摘要它的本質與內容。

 

A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a 'veil' and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them. 一個國際的大型律師事務所幫忙寫了一份政治遊說的手冊，教人們如何改變法律，以禁止家長對他們的孩子，在作出重大改變（變性醫療上）保有最終決定權。這份教戰手冊也建議政治遊說要隱藏他們的計畫在「面紗」之後，確保無論是媒體還是大眾，都無法得知這些改變會如何影響孩子。因為社會大眾如果知道了，他們可能會拒絕。

 

I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a 'veil' and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue. 我在1994年開始了我作為英國下議院研究員的第一份工作。從那時開始，我就一直在研究和書寫關於政治與公共政策的議題。在我的經驗中，要如何改變法律，這個報告所描述的方法已經完全不正常也不尋常。在民主國家，我們可以自由討論任何我們希望的政策或（法律）地位。但通常，任何人想要改變法律讓他們做想做的事時，他們需要贏得大眾支持，或至少，得到人們的同意，因為是人們的同意使法律有其正當性。Dentons報告對遊說、使人們得到他們想要的政策這點，具體提供了一個非常不同的方向。尤有甚者，它建議在某些國家，躲藏在「面紗」之後的遊說贏得了相當的勝利，並且使用蓄意避免引發大眾關注的方法。我想，這份報告應該引起任何關心政治與政策如何成形的人的注意，無論他們是否關心跨性別議題。

 

I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight. 我要以我之前作過的觀察心得作結，但我想這個結論最適合呼應那份報告的內容，並且它告訴人們關於跨性別議題的另一個面向：沒有任何在暗影中作成的政策，可以在陽光下存活。

 

 

譯註：在台灣，從Jaclynn Joseph的文章〈Gender identity legislation is being pushed through in Taiwan — will the public get a say?〉（中文翻譯點此）似乎也可以看出，某些團體以類似的手法在大眾不知處默默推動self-id相關制度。為了保障女性的安全空間（也進一步保障兒童權益*），請一起參與連署，並向身邊的人宣傳這個議題，或向立委、婦女團體以及行政機關施壓，讓我們的聲音被聽見。

連署1：免術換證應有配套措施

連署2：暫緩免術換證

（建議二個連署都參加，因台灣的手術要求僅為內政部函釋，法律位階不足，極有可能因違憲而失效。為避免無配套導致實質成為自由換證，須要至少要有連署1的配套措施）

如何參與連署？請點此

*行政院性平處招標、世新大學性別研究所團隊承辦的「性別變更法制化立法建議問卷」第五題：

跨權團體已開始著手推動降低治療年齡，問卷中以過多描述引導向「宜降低治療年齡」。