Muuu

（圖片：數以萬計的抗議者聚集在倫敦，抗議最高法院針對跨性別者的判決。來源 https://dub.sh/epDAdun ）

最近英國最高法院裁定，根據《平等法》：「女性的定義單指生理女性，不包括跨性別女性，定義僅指為生理性別」；同時跨性別仍適用其他反歧視法的規定，但最高法院的這項見解，將啟動平等法的修法，同時也將 MTF（男跨女）從原本就薄弱的保護中，在許多狀況置於真空，包括：進入女性專屬空間、影響就業與薪資平等的訴求等等。

這一波由 J. K. Rowling 在背後資助撐腰的反跨之戰，至此在英國掀起最高潮。

追蹤了 Emma Corrin 的帳號，發現她不只身體力行 non-binary 的酷兒風，限動轉貼的連結也不少議題好文，也能一窺倫敦酷兒圈的樣貌。有位跨性別作家就說，過去她進行性別重置手術，並獲得網路空間、能逐步成名自立的道路，如今已不復存—外在的惡意和攻擊過度強烈。

讀這篇 Illegally Female，頗難過 — 適逢川普大砍 USAID，作者等一干 LGBTQ 非營利工作者，頓失收入（這二天看到劉文提到美國高教現況，也是一樣慘烈，不只學校針對校園活動嚴審，許多性別和平等機會的專案也都難以找到經費 https://dub.sh/Cv2lrnH ）。

---

以下節錄、翻譯 “Illegally Female | Autostraddle" https://www.autostraddle.com/uk-supreme-court-ruling-anti-trans-women/

Why bring a case if this is already (woefully) enshrined in law? In practice, this has seen trans women increasingly excluded from all manner of services — including domestic violence refuges, a particular cruelty given the staggering rates of intimate partner violence and homelessness affecting trans women and girls. The Darlington Five are intent on making it illegal for trans women to share changing rooms with cis women. And this latest case is trying to make it illegal for trans women to sit on public boards in positions reserved for women in Scotland.

為何還要提出訴訟，如果這些（令人痛心地）已被寫入法律？實際上，這導致跨性別女性越來越多地被排除在各種服務之外—包括家庭暴力庇護所，這對跨性別女性與女孩來說格外殘酷，因為她們面臨的親密伴侶暴力與無家可歸率極高。「達靈頓五人組」（Darlington Five）堅持要讓跨性別女性與順性別女性共用更衣室變成違法。而這起最新的案件，試圖讓跨性別女性擔任蘇格蘭法律上保留給「女性」的公共董事會席次，變成違法。
.
One question plagues fascist movements the world over: What makes a woman? The Supreme Court today decided that woman refers to “the ordinary meaning of [that] plain and unambiguous” word — a meaning so ordinary they did not define it themselves. Is a woman chromosomal, hormonal, or genital? Which is the plain and unambiguous defining characteristic in a human world that includes not only trans women but intersex people, women with PCOS, and natural variation in nearly every aspect of our physiology from height to hair distribution to genital size and shape? Much as US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart argued about pornography in the 1960s, apparently the UK Supreme Court will know women when they see them.

一個問題困擾著世界各地的法西斯運動：什麼才算是女人？英國最高法院今天裁定，「女人」這個詞指的是「該詞語的普通且明確的意思」—這個意思如此普通，以至於他們自己都沒有明確定義。那麼，女人是由染色體決定的？還是荷爾蒙？還是生殖器？在這個人類社會中，不只有跨性別女性，還有雙性人、多囊性卵巢症候群（PCOS）患者，以及從身高、體毛分布到生殖器大小與形狀各方面都存在自然變異的女性—究竟哪一項才是「普通且明確」的定義特徵？就像美國最高法院大法官波特·史都華在1960年代談論色情片時所說的一樣，顯然英國最高法院現在的立場是：他們看到的時候，就知道誰是女人。

No longer being legally women, we un-women are left to wonder: Will we face arrest for using public toilets? Is there any purpose left at all to legally changing one’s gender via the Gender Recognition Act if it has no effect on any aspect of how we are treated in law, in prisons, or even in which hospital ward we are placed in? What will life be like for those who now exist outside the law — who will we become and how will we live?

既然我們不再被法律視為女性，我們這些「非女性」只能困惑地想：使用公共廁所時，我們會不會被逮捕？如果《性別承認法》（Gender Recognition Act）對我們在法律上的待遇、在監獄中的安排，甚至住進哪一間病房都毫無影響，那麼，法律上變更性別還有任何意義嗎？對於那些如今被排除在法律之外的人來說，未來的生活會是什麼模樣—我們將成為誰？又要如何活下去？
.
Getting off my three hour train ride, still scrolling through the endless stream of reactions of my friends to the emerging news, I realized with annoyance that I needed to use the public bathroom. Realistically, most people in the UK are blithely unaware that this decision has been made, despite it grabbing front page headlines in every major news source. And yet there I was feeling hesitant and uncomfortable about doing something I have done hundreds of thousands of times over the past twenty-two years of my life as an out trans woman. This is the intended effect: making trans women afraid, shutting us out from public life in its most basic forms.

結束了三個小時的火車旅程，我一邊滑著手機，看著朋友們對這則新聞接二連三的反應，一邊煩躁地意識到—我需要上廁所。現實是，儘管這則判決佔據了各大媒體的頭版頭條，英國大多數人對它其實毫無所覺。而我，卻在那一刻對一件自己過去二十二年、以跨性別女性身份無數次做過的日常小事，感到遲疑與不安。這正是這項判決的真正意圖：讓跨性別女性感到恐懼，把我們從公共生活最基本的層面中驅逐出去。

The clarification that trans women do not legally count as women is only the latest in the rights erosion speedrun being orchestrated both within and outside government.

釐清跨性別女性在法律上不被視為女性，僅僅是這場「權利侵蝕的競速比賽」中的最新一關，而這場比賽正由政府內外的力量聯手操控著。
.
No safe harbour there. I trade voice notes back and forth with one of my Good Judy’s in Brooklyn about the politics behind why no country will take American or British trans people as political refugees — to do so would be to denounce that country on the international stage, something no one is willing to do. Asylum claims are more political stances than human rights cases, at the end of the day.

那裡也沒有安全的避風港。我和住在布魯克林的摯友（我的 Good Judy）來回交換語音訊息，討論為什麼沒有任何國家願意接納美國或英國的跨性別者作為政治難民—因為那麼做，就等於在國際舞台上公開譴責這些國家，而沒有人願意冒這個險。到頭來，庇護申請往往更像是一種政治立場，而不是單純的人權案件。
.
We only have each other, at least for as long as it takes for them to disappear us, too. But what I know they can never take, what cannot be stolen from me or pressured out of me, what is inalienable is the knowledge of who and what I am. A woman, illegally.

我們只剩下彼此，至少在他們將我們也一一抹去之前。但我知道，有些東西他們永遠奪不走—無論是竊取、打壓還是逼迫，都無法從我身上剝離，那就是：我知道我是誰，我是什麼。那是無法被剝奪的真理。

我是一名女性，非法的。