Addressing heteronormativity: Gendered familial appellations as an issue in the same-sex marriage debate in Taiwan

Abstract

On 24 May 2017, a historical landmark for the LGBT movement was achieved in Taiwan. The courts delivered Interpretation no. 748, which declares that the legal regulation in the Civil Code disallowing two individuals of the same sex to marry is unconstitutional and that the law should therefore be amended within two years. While the legal arguments at the constitutional level seem settled, discussions regarding sexuality, family and tradition triggered by the debate about same-sex marriage are continuing. Drawing on feminist and queer scholarship, I advocate turning the spotlight from the ‘subversive’ homosexual to ‘normative’ heterosexuality. In addition, through the theoretical lens of interactionism on sexuality, this study investigates a quotidian but controversial topic emerging in the debate: gendered familial appellations. Using transcripts of public hearings as research data, I discuss how the practice of employing gendered familial appellations based on the idea of the heterosexual family becomes an issue in the debate. Through an analysis of the matter, I argue that the heteronormative social order embedded in everyday interactions within the context of Taiwan society is revealed. This heteronormativity is not only gendered and hierarchically heterosexual but also ethnocentric in nature.

Same‐sex partnership in the family policies of Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan

“…Nevertheless, such transformation not only requires substantial taxation and welfare reforms but also raises concerns about the potential “deterioration” of prevalent family structures and values, which regard family as the main care provider. From this perspective, the change in the legal definition of family and marriage/partnership may be more efficient, though similarly controversial due to its challenge to heteronormativity (Chin, 2020).…”

Taiwan's Same-Sex Marriage Legislation: Social Movement Strategies and Relational Dynamics

“…Legislators from Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with a strong foothold in the Legislative Yuan and other pro-SSM lawmakers successfully pushed the Act across the line on 17 May 2019, which became effective on 24 May 2019, the deadline set by the Constitutional Court in the 2017 Judicial Interpretation. Adoption rights are still restricted for same-sex couples, and at least one person should hold local residence and another must hold citizenship from a country where SSM is legal before they can get married in Taiwan (Chin 2020(Chin , 1081. The ban on such transnational samesex marriage was finally lifted in January 2023, but same-sex partners from the People's Republic of China are still excluded (see Chau 2023).…”

“…Gender and sexual diversity and equality have long been a staple in the studies of Taiwan's social and family change (Brainer 2019; Cheng, Wu, and Adamczyk 2016; Chien 2012; Chin 2020; Hsu 2015; Tang, Khor, and Chen 2020), cultural differences and shifts (Adamczyk and Cheng 2015; Chen 2011; Ho 2010; Lu 2020), and social movements/countermovements in various legal and political struggles and reforms (Chang 2019; Ho 2019 2020; Krumbein 2020; Kuan 2019; Lee 2017; Lee 2021). Pro-gay activism has a long history since the lift of Martial Law and the democratization of the island-state in the late twentieth century, while Taiwan's anti-gay movement has become more institutionalized, facing the growing pro-SSM campaigns since the turn of the new millennium (see Kao 2018 for a detailed discussion).…”

Mothers as stancetakers: Intertextuality in same-sex marriage debates in Taiwan

“…While the supporters stressed marriage equality and human right, the opponents often framed their opposition around the protection of family, children, and the traditional values (Chiang and Su, 2022; Lee and Lin, 2022; Wang, 2020). Chin (2020) examines how gendered familial appellations became an issue in the SSM debates in Taiwan, providing a telling example of how the attempt to use gender-neutral terms in the law raised opponents’ concern about gender order in the family domain.…”

“…The question, thus, is not a true question but an act of misalignment with the ongoing legalization attempts, as can also be observed in her combined use of a question mark and an exclamation mark at the end. This misaligning act is reminiscent of the controversy examined in Chin (2020) about SSM opponents’ anxiety over whether the legalization attempt would lead to change in familial appellation practices. Both see SSM legalization as a threat to the heteronormative order so fundamental in conventional families.…”