「性」與「性別」教育的分合與競逐：臺灣與英國相關概念發展之比較   免費試閱

In/Exclusion and Contentions between “Sex” and “Gender” Education in Taiwan: Comparisons of Conceptual Development between Taiwan and U.K.

臺灣的「性教育」與「性別教育」都是從西方英語系國家借進來的概念，但因語言、文化、社會環境的差異，造成轉譯與詮釋上的問題。本研究嘗試從臺灣與英國相關概念發展之比較，並從歷史考察探究「性教育」與「性別教育」的發展脈絡、競逐或合流，藉以釐清學校老師或教育行政人員詮釋與實踐「性別教育」的問題。本研究混合深度訪談、文件分析與論述分析法，由西方「性」、「性別」與「性態」的概念與關聯性談起，說明英國「性教育」與「性別教育」發展的狀況與概念內涵，接著審視臺灣性教育與性別教育的發展沿革、重點、內容、分合或競逐，藉此釐清臺灣教育人員對性教育與性別教育理解上產生混淆之因素以及未來在課程發展上可能的發展與修正等。英國的「性教育」與「性別教育」的發展有著不同的時空背景與脈絡環境，在教育體系為兩條不同的發展軸線，性教育尤其擴充為「性與關係教育」。國內「性教育」與「性別教育」在推廣過程中皆曾使用「兩性教育」一詞，中間的模糊地帶開啟了教育人員對兩者概念上的混淆。兩陣營雖然後來都試圖將對方的概念囊括進來，擴大各自的資源與影響力，但因之前的混淆並沒有適度被釐清，「性教育」或「性別教育」之間依舊存在著誰包含誰的爭論。

Both the concepts and ideas of "Sex Education" and "Gender Education" were mainly borrowed from English-speaking Western countries. However, the borrowing may bring about translation and interpretation problems due to the differences of languages, cultures as well as society. This article adopts in-depth interviews, documentary analysis, and discourse analysis, attempting to examine the concepts and ideas of sex education and gender education respectively in the historical contexts of Taiwan and U.K. in order to gain insights on the mysterious gap between policy and practice.
The paper departs from illustrating the ideas, implications, and relationships among "sex" "sexuality", and "gender" in English-speaking Western countries, followed by the developments and definitions of "sex education" and "gender education" in the U.K. Subsequently, it examines the developments and definitions of "sex education" and "gender education" in Taiwan in order to clarify the reasons of confusions between them. The English word "gender" was translated into Chinese as "both sexes" (literally counterposing symbols for women and men), with the translation emphasising the unequal distribution of opportunities between men and women and the patriarchal structure of society. Likewise, the English word "sex" was also translated into Chinese as "both sexes", with the translation concentrating on the sex and health education between two sexes. This contingency possibly results in educational practitioners "confusion on" "sex education" as well as "gender education". In addition, the in/ exclusion struggles of "who includes who" still exists.