論性少數族群之權利保障─以兩公約為中心

我國司法院大法官於2017年5月24日作成釋字第748號解釋，嗣經立法院於2019年5月24日公布施行《司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法》，為長達數十年的同性婚姻平權運動畫下新的里程碑，然而，與傳統性別二元規範不相符合的性少數族群，在法律上及社會上受有之歧視仍未因此止歇。本文透過爬梳整理我國法及《公民與政治權利國際公約》（International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights）和《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》（International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights）（以下簡稱兩公約），輔以性∕別觀點，探究我國法及兩公約是否以及如何保障性少數族群之權利，並提出本文之見解。本文發現，雖然我國法及兩公約均僅規範了性別的平等保障，不過，人權事務委員會（Human Rights Committee）及經濟、社會和文化權利委員會（Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights）進一步將生理性別擴及至社會性別、性傾向與性別認同等概念，在具體的申訴案件中，透過加重締約國對於差別待遇正當性的舉證責任，達到對性少數族群實質保障的效果，此外，兩公約亦注意到對於性少數族群在自由權面向上的侵害，而在隱私權中納入了性別認同及其表達的人格自主意涵。相對於此，我國釋憲實務迄今僅提及性別和性傾向之平等，從歷來作成的解釋以觀，相較於性∕別的相關權利內涵，大法官傾向著重於性的價值秩序。本文注意到，對於性∕別的理解，或著重在性（情慾）慾望及性實踐的面向，例如：性行為、性言論的管制，或有從身分認同的角度，而將之視為一種分類結果（類別），例如：男人與女人、同性戀者與異性戀者、順性別與跨性別者等，基本權利亦根植在這樣的理解之上，而發展出性自主權與性別自主決定權。然而，本文認為性與性別難以截然二分，性∕別的概念具有多元流動的屬性，站在流動光譜上的每一個個體都是做性∕別的主體，或有相近之處，然無從逐一歸類，同一群體間仍有國族、種族、階級而產生的差異，而未必共享同樣的認同。此外，如同芭特勒（Judith Butler）所指出的，任何對於性別意義預設的限制，將不可避免地造成排他性的結果，就此以言，法規範對於性∕別的分類，均可能造成主體做性∕別的限制與壓迫，而須受平等權的檢視，考量到性少數族群的處境在於自始被排除於法律與社會的體系之外，以及性傾向與性別認同往往涉及了當事人的心理認識層面或人際交往、關係建立等面向，未必是法規範所得以直接規制者，是以，若能在平等權的審查中，積極適用間接歧視的概念，使得表面上中立，而實質上排除或歧視了性少數族群的法規範，亦能受到平等權的保障，或許是可思考的方向之一，惟亦應避免在指出法規範分類不當的同時，重新落入新的分類架構之中。在自由權的部分，由於個人的性∕別、性傾向及性別認同均屬人格之一部，在我國大法官解釋已肯認憲法第22條保障性自主權的情形下，或可由此開展，將性自主權之權利內涵，涵蓋個人對於自身的認同（identity），取得定義自己、作自己的「性別不服從」權利的自主決定面向，並得以積極形塑、支配自身身體（body），避免來自國家或他人對於身體的干預，以及藉由對外的表現（perform），例如自主決定是否、如何、向何人揭露自身之性別、性傾向、性別認同，甚或是否使用具有性別意涵之姓名、衣著打扮乃至於如廁等言行舉止，以充實權利內涵。

關鍵字

性少數族群；跨性別；公民與政治權利國際公約；經濟社會文化權利國際公約；平等權；性自主權

並列摘要

The Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. gave the Interpretations No. 748 on May 24, 2017, and the Legislative Yuan subsequently promulgated and implemented the Enforcement Act of Judicial Yuan Interpretations No. 748 on May 24, 2019, which was a milestone for equal rights for the decades’ long same-sex marriage movement. However, discrimination against sexual minorities did not cease in legal or social aspects. This study went through the legal system in Taiwan and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (hereinafter referred to as the “Two Covenants”) as well as the gender perspectives to discuss how and whether the legal system in Taiwan and the Two Covenants protect the rights of sexual minorities, and then presented its own opinions. An examination of the Two Covenants and the Constitutional law in Taiwan, reveals that although the Constitutional law in Taiwan and the Two Covenants merely regulate rights to equality without distinction of sex, the Human Rights Committee(HRC) and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has further extended sex/gender equality to the concept of sexual orientation and gender identity, the HRC places a heavy burden on the State party to explain the reason for the differentiation based on sexual orientation and gender identity, thus enhance the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. By contrast, the interpretations of the Judicial Yuan in Taiwan merely mention equality for gender and sexual orientation, in view of the previous Interpretations, the Justices of the Constitutional Court appear to place greater emphasis on morals rather than sex/gender rights. In my opinion, the negative situation facing sexual minorities are due to the fact that they have been excluded from the legal and social systems. Since sexual orientation and gender identity often involve personal cognitive aspects, interpersonal interactions and establishment of relationships, which cannot necessarily be directly regulated by law, a possible solution is to actively apply the concept of indirect discrimination to ensure law or measures that are de jure neutral but constitute de facto exclusion or discrimination of sexual minorities are subject to review of equality. Furthermore, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity are all integral parts of individual personality. Under the prerequisite that the interpretations of the Judicial Yuan concluded that the right of sexual autonomy is protected under Article 22 of the Constitution, I believe that such right should include self-identity. For example, One’s self-awareness and confirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity should be allowed to freely develop without intervention, with the right to “gender non-conforming”. One should be able to actively shape one’s own body and avoid bodily interventions from others, for example, not being forced to undergo gender affirmation surgery, and choose to disclose or not to disclose information relating to one’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including using names with gender implication and behaviors such as the way one dresses and uses the toilet, which should constitute the connotation of such rights.