Article

Sexualities
0(0) 1–17
Addressing ! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
heteronormativity: [Link]/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1363460719884022
Gendered familial [Link]/home/sex

appellations as an issue
in the same-sex marriage
debate in Taiwan
Ting-Fang Chin
Independent Researcher, 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 argu-
ments 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 hear-
ings as research data, I discuss how the practice of employing gendered familial appel-
lations 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.

Keywords
Familial appellation, gender, heteronormativity, same-sex marriage, Taiwan

Corresponding author:
Dr Ting-Fang Chin, No. 6, Alley 23, Lane 107, Section 2, Heping East Road, Da’an District, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
2 Sexualities 0(0)

Introduction
On 24 May 2017, a historical landmark for the LGBT movement was achieved in
Taiwan. The council of grand justices delivered Interpretation no. 748, which
declared the regulations on ‘Family of the Civil Code [that] do not allow two
persons of the same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive
nature for the purpose of living a common life’ were ‘in violation of constitution’s
guarantees of both the people’s freedom of marriage’ and ‘the people’s right to
equality’.1 It also stated that the law should therefore be amended within two years,
which means the legislation deadline was 24 May 2019. If the authorities fail to do
so, same-sex couples ‘shall be allowed to have their marriage registration effectu-
ated at the authorities in charge of household registration’. This ruling soon occu-
pied media headlines. International news agencies reported general anticipation
that Taiwan was to be the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage
and even identified it as the liberal beacon in the region (see Hioe, 2017;
Smith, 2017).
However, the referendum successfully proposed by conservative Christian
groups to circumvent the justices’ ruling soon cast a shadow on the prospective
status of a progressive Taiwan (Reid, 2018).2 They aimed to reserve the Civil Code
for heterosexual marriage and ran a referendum campaign which was well funded
and characterized by misinformation, such as connecting same-sex marriage with
an AIDS pandemic (Harton, 2018; Steger, 2018). On 24 November 2018, in an
appalling shock to the progressive civil society, Taiwan voted in favour of retaining
the Civil Code regulations which restrict marriage to being between a man and a
woman. Anti-gay groups gained momentum through mobilization while activists
and pro-LGBT groups were deeply concerned that the referendum result would
prevent President Tsai Ing-Wen’s administration to legalize same-sex marriage.
On 21 February 2019, the Executive Yuan proposed a special law to give same-
sex couples legal protections (see Lee, 2019). The draft bill is called ‘The
Enforcement Act of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748’. Although it is a special
law, it did refer to the regulations of the Civil Code and state applicable mutatis
mutandis. The bill therefore followed the grand justices’ interpretation as well as the
referendum result. On 17 May 2019, article by article, the legislators voted in
favour of the bill. President Tsai signed the bill on 22 May 2019 and the law
came into effect two days later. Taiwan officially becomes the first nation in Asia
to recognize same-sex marriage. Although the bill was the most progressive of the
proposed, it is not perfect. Most of all, it offers some but not full adoption rights.
Also, the law only recognizes transnational same-sex marriages when the foreign
partner is from a country where same-sex marriage is legal (Kuo, 2019). With
unsolved and pending legal issues, it is clear that same-sex marriage will remain
a heavily discussed subject in Taiwan.
In response to vocal public discussion, research efforts were made to context-
ualize and investigate same-sex marriage legislation in Taiwan. For example, Yen-
hsin Alice Cheng, Fen-Chieh Felice Wu and Amy Adamczyk’s study (2016)
indicated that from 1995 to 2012, the liberal attitudes toward homosexuality in
Chin 3

Taiwan showed signs of increasing, particularly among women and the college-
educated, laying a social foundation for the potential legislation. Conversely,
Timothy S. Rich (2016) examined the state’s electoral institution, which enabled
cross-partisan support of the legislation. Theresa Der-Lan Yeh (2017) examined
the cyber-discourse against same-sex marriage and the similarities and differences
in discursive strategies adopted by both local and foreign groups. In P. Lee’s
attempt to theorize queer activism in Taiwan, he argued that the Taiwanese move-
ment for sexual and gender minorities was ‘a process of democratizing the ‘‘activ-
ism itself’’, and the prioritization of same-sex marriage on the movement’s agenda
was in this context critically contested among activists and members of the LGBTQ
communities (2017: 684). This thread of timely scholarship provided insights into
the complexity and specificities in the local context. In addition, it offers alternative
insights for the established academic investigation of same-sex marriage mostly
focusing on ‘the western world’, namely, North America (e.g. Coolidge, 1998;
Kandaswamy, 2008; Nicol and Smith, 2008; Radbord, 2005; Sherkat, 2017; van
der Toorn et al., 2017; Veigh and Diaz, 2009; Young, 2006) and western European
countries (e.g. Bachmann, 2011; Borrillo, 2005; Einarsdóttir, 2013; Hekma, 2002;
Kantsa, 2014; Pichardo, 2011; Platero, 2007). Similar to other countries beyond
this ‘western’ picture, such as South Africa, Taiwan has the potential for being
a valuable sociological case and for expanding intellectual dialogue on gender
and sexuality (see, e.g. Ratele, 2016; Reygan and Lynette, 2014; Scott and
Theron, 2017).
Drawing on feminist and queer scholarship, I advocate turning the spotlight
from the ‘subversive’ homosexual to ‘normative’ heterosexuality. By doing so, I
intend to expose the (re)production of heteronormativity. Furthermore, through
the theoretic lens of interactionism on sexuality, I aim to expand the critical dis-
cussion of same-sex marriage in Taiwan by investigating the implications of hetero-
normativity with a focus on familial appellation [ ; qin shu cheng wei]. The
familial appellations identified in this study are kinship terms, which are used by
social actors to refer to their family members. Anti-gay groups have asserted that
legalizing same-sex marriage would outlaw the ‘traditional’ familial appellations.
While it may seem absurd, the assertion has gained support through the anti-gay
referendum campaign. Adopting Herbert Blumer’s categorization of objects, I see
familial appellations as terms referring to the social objects of familial relation-
ships. I argue for perceiving the same-sex marriage debate as a sense-making pro-
ject and the legislation as a rule-breaking process. In this process, the gendered
legal subject and heteronormativity in everyday practice such as appellation, are
revealed and can no longer pass as ‘sexuality-neutral’ norms. I will first discuss the
rationale of my theoretical stance before presenting the data and their analysis.

Enquiring into heterosexuality

As a result of long-standing efforts by feminist and queer researchers, enquiring
into the sociality of sexuality at both the institutional and individual levels has been
4 Sexualities 0(0)

a sociological tradition since at least the 1960s (see e.g. Gagnon and Simon, 1974;
Ingraham, 1994; Jackson, 1999; McIntosh, 1968; Rich, 1980; Simon and Gagnon,
1986). Along with this intellectual development, the critical analysis of the norma-
tivity of heterosexuality is now acknowledged as an indispensable part of that
enquiry. Heteronormativity, in Mary Holmes’s words, is ‘the dominance of
social norms that suggest heterosexuality is the ‘‘normal’’ and ‘‘natural’’ form of
sexuality’ (2009: 120–121). While it may not be too difficult to see that heterosexu-
ality is often regarded as the norm, further sociological efforts are needed to the-
orize how the normalization of heterosexuality is accomplished in our social life.
Within a dichotomous structure, the security of the normal is usually realized by
the identification of the deviant. Guarding a normative status requires the work of
border patrols to maintain boundaries and thus to distinguish the inside from the
outside. In Diana Fuss’s articulate words, ‘heterosexuality secures its self-identity
and shores up its ontological boundaries by protecting itself from what it sees as
the continual predatory encroachments of its contaminated other, homosexuality’
(1991: 2). Thus, homosexuality, as the outside threat, is the subordinate deviant in
the dichotomy. Studies of the homosexualization of AIDS, for example, have
offered insightful analysis into this ontological code (see e.g. Herek, 1999;
Lawrence et al., 1990; Seidman, 1997).3 It is also within this structure that the
ambiguity of the normal and its interdependent relationships to the deviant is
exposed, for ‘‘‘heterosexuality’’ has meanings only in relation to ‘‘homosexuality’’;
the coherence of the former is built on the presence and the repression or repudi-
ation of the latter’ (Seidman, 1997: 132).
Studying deviance reveals the hetero/homo dichotomy and uncovers the hier-
archical significance within it. However, the theorization of heteronormativity
cannot be complete without an investigation of those within the secured bound-
aries. Diana Richardson has posted a critical reminder that ‘where sexuality is
acknowledged as a significant category for social analysis, it has been primarily
in the context of theorizing the ‘‘sexual other’’, defined in a relation to normative
heterosexuality’ (1996: 19). My understanding of Richardson’s words is that our
sociological enquiry on sexuality cannot afford to neglect heterosexuality itself as a
meaningful topic to explore, or our efforts at exposing heteronormativity might fail
and even reinforce the dichotomous structure of hetero/homo as normal/deviant.
If not a revolutionary turn, feminist and queer researchers’ critical reflections on
the approach to studying ‘the deviant’ have produced significant scholarship, which
theorizes heteronormativity by making heterosexuality its focus. This trend of
intellectual engagement generally exposes two characteristics of normative hetero-
sexuality as an institutional entity. One is that heterosexuality succeeds in being
quietly normal and avoiding being named. The other is the policing effect of
heteronormativity on heterosexuals.
While homosexuality is regularly labelled and marked as the deviant other,
heterosexuality on the other hand often hides itself in plain sight by employing
the silent mode towards itself. In other words, one of the ways the normative status
of heterosexuality is enacted as natural, universal and compulsory is through
Chin 5

vocally sanctioning the deviant outsider, homosexuality, while at the same time
avoiding to name itself. This is revealed in the comparatively insufficient vocabu-
lary for identifying heterosexuality in social life, as well as the lack of a common
understanding of that vocabulary. For instance, ‘coming out’ as a phrase referring
to the action of disclosing an individual’s sexual orientation is primarily used in
cases of non-heterosexuals.4 While assumed heterosexuals can simply ‘pass’ with-
out declaring their sexual orientations, sexual minorities often face the dilemma of
revealing this specific personal information to others or the general public (see e.g.
Brainer, 2018; Denes and Afifi, 2014; Griffith and Hebl, 2002; Haider-Markel,
2010; Huang, 2011; Orne, 2011; Wang et al., 2009). Even if the term ‘heterosexu-
ality’ is used and made visible in social interactions, there may be no common
understanding for the identified individuals to grasp the meaning of the term (see
Jackson, 1999).
The marginalization produced by normativity affects not only the deviant out-
side of the heterosexual category but also those on the inside, as Stevi Jackson
indicates: ‘normative heterosexuality regulates those kept within its boundaries as
well as marginalizing and sanctioning those outside them’ (Jackson, 2006: 105).
Therefore, despite the diversity in perspectives and approaches, the normative
status of heterosexuality is perceived as one of the focal points for the sociological
investigation of sexuality. Queer theory, which develops its intellectual richness
from the position of outing and revealing sexual differences and fluidity, has
been reminded to observe ‘the impact of regimes of normative heterosexuality on
heterosexuality’ (Seidman, 2005: 40). Feminist scholarship, with its political stance
of challenging the patriarchal oppression of women, has critically examined ‘how
normative heterosexuality affects the lives of heterosexuals’ (see Jackson, 2006:
105). Hence, a sufficient examination of the heteronormative social order requires
at least a critique of both how the contaminated ‘other’ is marginalized as well as
how the heterogeneity of heterosexuality is silenced or hidden.
‘Heterosexuality is named by straights only when it is felt to be under threat’
(Jackson, 1999: 173). For regarding same-sex marriage as a major threat, hetero-
sexuality is desperately shouting its name in Taiwan. It is this historical moment,
when extreme voices attempt to assert the deviance of homosexuality (or non-
heterosexuality), which I consider a crucial time during which to investigate the
implications of heterosexuality in order to advance a sociological understanding of
heteronormativity in Taiwanese society.
Moreover, I am also convinced that an analytical focus on everyday interactions
and practices in social life is indispensable for this sociological investigation. John
Gagnon and William Simon’s (1974) pioneering work on ‘sexual conduct’ has laid
the crucial foundation for the foregoing theorization on the sociality of sexuality.
Challenging the dominant biological determinism and psychoanalytic assumptions
at the time, Gagnon and Simon propose an interactionist view which takes the
‘everydayness of sexuality’ into account (Jackson and Scott, 2010b: 815). Their
version of the social constructionism on sexuality is of an on-going process pervad-
ing every part of our social lives. This theoretical foundation has been advanced by
6 Sexualities 0(0)

ethnomethodological research on gender and sexuality (e.g. Kessler and Mckenna

1978; West and Zimmerman, 1987). Following this scholarly tradition, I recognize
heterosexuality as a ‘practical accomplishment through everyday interpretive inter-
action’, and argue that therefore sociological enquiry should be expanded to
include the everyday activities of social actors (Jackson and Scott, 2010a: 92).
Thus, in this article the focus of my data analysis is on an emerging issue which
may seem trivial and mundane but has significant implications for heteronorma-
tivity in terms of everydayness: gendered familial appellations.

Data and the study

Before presenting my analysis, I offer here some background information about the
data and the study. The data of this research are the official minutes of four public
meetings organized by the Legislative Yuan. Since 2012, when the Duo Yuan Cheng
Jia Legal Draft [ ; Family Diversity Legal Draft] was proposed by the
Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights [TAPCPR;
], government branches have organized public meetings, such as hearings
and forums, to collect public opinion on the issue.5 The delegates include repre-
sentatives from civil groups, experts and scholars with professional knowledge of
the issue. For further information about each meeting, please see Table 1. The time
period covers the end of 2012 to the end of 2016. The official minutes are not exact
transcripts of the meetings, but records that have been naturalized (see Oliver et al.,
2005). Revision notes of the minutes show that the original minutes were
checked by the delegates before being released and published. I identify the
public meetings as ‘particular settings’ in which the participants generate verbal
expressions on same-sex marriage legislation (Kohler, 2005: 2). Their verbal expres-
sions are narratives not only in terms of the subject matter discussed but also in
terms of their own subjective experiences and their ‘conceptions of self and identity’
(Smith, 2000: 328).
I am aware that these public hearing materials have a limited representativeness.
Instead of claiming that these materials offer a full picture of the debates on same-
sex marriage in Taiwan, I regard them as useful data providing partial but
crucial representation on the issue. In addition, it should be noted that the
accounts recorded in those events have a political implication, as they are generated
in the context of making government policy on the issue and may have an
impact on policy-making. Moreover, it is important to understand what kind of
arguments were constructed around and made relevant for this issue. I should
also indicate that the discussions in the official minutes are of course shaped and
structured by the proposed legal solution and the draft regulation that was set up as
the main topic. In the matter of legislation of same-sex civil unions, same-
sex marriage and same-sex partnership are the two primary legal formulas being
discussed in government branches. However, this does not mean that there are no
other alternative proposals in civil society, such as the multi-person familial
partnership.6
Chin 7

Table 1. The list of research data.

Date Organizer Meeting type Subject

26.12.2012 Legislative Yuan Public hearing Legalization of same-sex marriage

and legislation of civil partnership rights
16.10.2014 Legislative Yuan Public hearing Same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption
24.11.2016 Legislative Yuan Public hearing Legal amendments for same-sex marriage
28.11.2016 Legislative Yuan Public hearing Legislation of same-sex marriage

Appellations as an issue in the same-sex marriage debate

Since the 1990s, the Civil Code has been subject to several major amendments.
Revision by revision, the legal system has been ameliorated. The women’s move-
ment in Taiwan is the primary force impelling this development. Women’s groups
and feminist activists were (and still are) calling for replacing patriarchal ideology
with gender equality as the legal norm (see Wang, 2006). Legal regulations which
privileged men and discriminated against women were revoked or amended, such
as the statute making the fathers’ surname the default one for a child to adopt.
While progress has been made for improving women’s rights, our Civil Code
largely remains biased toward the heterosexual, particularly the regulations in
the Part Four Family. The wording of the statutes manifests gendered and hetero-
normative assumptions. For example, the Mandarin term fumu [ ; father and
mother] is used to refer to the parents of a child and zufumu [ ; grandfather
and grandmother] is used to refer to the grandparents. They are all gendered terms
implying heterosexual family relationships. With the issue of same-sex marriage
legislation on the table, it is reasonable to expect these terms to be reviewed.
However, it would come as a surprise to see these terms to be in the spotlight
and become an issue in the debate.
On 24 March 2017, the Constitutional Court of Taiwan held an oral argument
session on same-sex marriage. The proposed issue was to judge whether the current
regulation on marriage in the Civil Code was unconstitutional, as it excluded same-
sex couples. The petitioners along with their legal representatives, the officials of
the concerned government branches, and the judicial experts were invited to deliver
their opinions. Legal items relating to same-sex marriage were presented and
debated with circumspection. Discussion proceeded seriously until Justice
Minister Chiu Tai-san introduced his argument. Chiu claimed that to legalize
same-sex marriage could interfere with the current rites of ancestor worship and
create problems for the everyday practices of family life. The Minister asked, ‘What
are we going to write on the ancestral tablets [to address the deceased]?’ and ‘How
to identify a same-sex partner as a daughter-in-law or a son-in-law?’ (see Fang,
2017; Rauhala, 2017). Chiu’s remark was perceived as a gaffe by legal profes-
sionals.7 It is indeed true that gendered kinship terminology plays an important
part in ritual practices in Taiwan, such as ancestor worship and funeral ceremonies.
8 Sexualities 0(0)

That is why it has been an important issue for discussion among members of the
LGBT community since their familial status remains largely unrecognizable
through these practices. Nevertheless, because Taiwan is a secular state, using
religious custom to argue against a legal proposal is hardly legitimate. Much to
legal professionals’ surprise, utterances similar to Chiu’s have been repeatedly
expressed by opponents of the legislation.
Article 972 of the Civil Code states that ‘an agreement to marry shall be made by
the male and the female parties in their own concord [sic].’ To pass same-sex
marriage legislation, one solution is simply to replace the gendered terms (male
and female) in this article with gender-neutral ones, and the same rule should apply
to other gendered legal terms. To accommodate individuals with different back-
grounds and identities, legal terms should be as neutral as possible. Hsu Hsiu-Wen,
the co-founder and CEO of TAPCPR, argues that

It is exactly because of the universality of the law, [that] we should neutralize the legal
terms to accommodate the diversity of gender and sexuality. Why? Because we should
know that there are not only heterosexual people in this world. There are also bisex-
ual, intersexual, transgender, transsexual people. (Hsu Hsiu-Wen, CEO of Taiwan
Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, public hearing, 16 October 2014)

For supporters, to adopt gender-neutral terms in the law itself is a necessary step in
legally recognizing sexual and gender diversity. However, this proposal provoked
panic among the legislation’s opponent groups. They worried that changing the
terms legally would lead to the elimination of gendered familial appellations used
by individuals in social interactions. This worry was expressed in all four public
hearings collected in this study. The following is one example:

. . . If the term, ‘fu mu’ [ ; father and mother], is changed to ‘shuangqin’ [ ;

both parents] and ‘zu fu mu’ [ ; grandfather, grandmother] to ‘the consanguin-
eous relatives of the second degree of kinship’, according to my personal sense of just-
ice, I would not know how to teach my kids. If my grandson and granddaughter call
me ‘the consanguineous relatives of the second degree of kinship’ rather than a-kong
[ ; grandfather], I would break down (Han Yuh-Chieh, Associate Professor, Yu
Da University of Science and Technology, public hearing, 16 October 2014).

This delegate’s worry implies a sense of absolute synchronization between the

written legal regulation and everyday social practice. The assumption is that civil
law would have an imperative power on constraining actual social conduct.
Therefore, whichever appellation term is written in the law would be used in an
individual’s social behaviour. This absolute synchronization is, of course, a false
claim which neglects the legal, social, and cultural reality of Taiwanese society.
First, there is no legal regulation regarding designated terms for familial appella-
tions. Legal terms are legal terms. Social terms are social terms. As for the legal
aspect, social actors are free to use the appellation they find most suitable for any
Chin 9

given social circumstance. Second, gendered and gender-neutral terms coexist in

our written codes. Gender-neutral terms referring to marital or familial relation-
ships, such as ‘spouse’ and ‘any relative within the fourth degree of kinship’, are
already in the Civil Code. These gender-neutral terms are barely employed as
familial appellations in everyday social interactions. Furthermore, because
Taiwan is a multilingual society, gendered terms that are currently in the Civil
Code hardly prevail in social life. All our legal codes are written in Taiwanese
Mandarin. With its history of immigration and colonization, as well as its diverse
ethnicities, Taiwan is a society with a complex linguistic background. The
Mandarin language may have its political privilege in Taiwan, a legacy of the
Kuomintang’s authoritarian rule in the Cold War era, but it would be inaccurate
to assert that it is or should be the only language to be used (see Hsiau, 1997;
Sandel, 2003). This multilingual facet is also illustrated by the accounts of a dele-
gate, Han Yu-Jie, who claimed that he would be upset if his grandchildren called
him by a gender-neutral appellation instead of ‘a-kong’, an appellation of
Taiwanese language [Taigi or Taiyu] origin referring to grandfather that has
never been written into law. Though a commonly used appellation, the gendered
term referring to grandfather in the Civil Code is ‘zufu’, a Mandarin term. The
claim that the current gendered terms in the law are the conventional familial
appellations is hardly convincing. The following is a delegate offering different
familial appellations used in different ethnic and cultural groups countering this
misinformed claim:

For Taiwan people, the conventional appellation for ‘mother’ is ‘ina’, and for Atayal
people, it is ‘yaya’. As for myself, I address my parents as ‘father’ and ‘mother’. (Lin
Zhi-Jie, Portico Media, public hearing, 24 November 2016)

Lin Zhi-Jie’s accounts provide examples of daily practices of familial appellations

in non-Mandarin-speaking groups. The Mandarin-speaking population is only
part of the Taiwanese demography, and the Han culture is only part of the cultural
landscape of Taiwan (Brown, 2004). Given this social reality, any argument assert-
ing the universal status of Mandarin in Taiwan would be a false claim. Moreover,
to use this ideology as an argument opposing same-sex marriage legislation shows
the Mandarin-centred nature of heteronormativity in Taiwanese society. By
employing this argument, the opponents’ heteronormative assertion not only
denied the social experiences of homosexuals but also those of any social actor
who did not share a Mandarin cultural background, including heterosexuals.
By examining various accounts of gendered familial appellations, we find that
this Mandarin-speaking heteronormativity is ethnocentric. For those against same-
sex marriage groups, the Mandarin-gendered familial appellations were perceived
as universal:

We are against the legal proposal to change the traditional familial appellations (Qiu
Pei-En, lawyer, public hearing, 28 November 2016).
10 Sexualities 0(0)

In this case, the appellations are declared ‘traditional’. By adopting an ahistorical

tone, the account conceals its own cultural and ethnic position, which implies that
the matter is beyond debate. In addition to confusing legal terms with social terms,
as discussed earlier, this statement fails to recognize the diversity in culture and
ethnicity in society and misidentifies a person’s own cultural background and
experiences as the norm. The Mandarin-gendered familial appellations are tradi-
tionalized, along with the Han culture from which they are derived.
In addition, by arguing to ‘preserve’ the practice of employing gendered familial
appellations, the opponents of same-sex marriage aimed to protect a specific kind
of heterosexual social order in family interaction:

Appellations show beifen [ ; the social order of seniority] in a relationship. It

shows the attitude of the person. When children use the appellation of ‘parent 1’
instead of ‘baba’ [ ; papa], where would respect and love come from? (Zhang
Shou-Yi, the Alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the
Family, public hearing 16 October 2014).

In this delegate’s account, gendered familial appellations are identified as spoken

terms that convey specific social values and therefore should not be replaced by
gender-neutral ones. It is related as a matter regarding the social order of seniority.
Employing the ‘proper’ appellation is perceived as a way of showing ‘respect and
love’ in family interactions. It is argued that one’s own position in the hierarchical
network of generational seniority should be considered when an individual inter-
acts with other members in the family. Remarks such as this one, therefore, trum-
pet a specific social order that is not only gendered but also hierarchically
heterosexual. The gendered appellations that are argued to be preserved are actu-
ally ‘heterosexually ordered familial terms’ (Rahman and Jackson, 2000: 164). This
offers evidence for Chrys Ingraham’s critical reminder that ‘gender is inextricably
bound up with heterosexuality’ (1994: 204). The social meaning of familial roles
and familial relationships is contested in the context of same-sex marriage debate.8
The actual practice of familial appellations in social actors’ social life is a com-
plex and heterogeneous matter. In Taiwan, it is indeed not uncommon for members
of a family to address each other using familial appellations. Moreover, it is
common for social actors without familial relationships, such as colleagues at
work, to employ familial appellations to refer to each other (see Chin, 2018).
The exact term being used may vary according to the social actors’ relationships
and the given interactional situations. Social actors have their own ways of practis-
ing and interpreting these gendered terms in their families or in other social cir-
cumstances. For instance, gendered familial appellations are used not only by or
referring to heterosexual couples. A lesbian delegate shared her and her partner’s
experiences to explain that idea:

They [her parents] were thrilled when I told them I have found someone I love. They
call my wife ‘si-fu’ [ ; daughter-in-law] and ‘nyu-er’ [ ; daughter]. I call my
Chin 11

wife’s mother ‘mama’ [ ; mum]. (Su Shan, PrideWarch Taiwan, public hearing, 24
November 2016)

Despite these everyday life experiences illustrating the diversity of appellation prac-
tices, opponents of the legislation refused to acknowledge them and insisted on
limiting gendered familial appellations to heterosexuals alone:

. . . in the case of a same-sex relationship, say you are a lesbian couple, why do you
introduce yourselves as ‘me and my wife’? Why are there still roles such as a husband
and a wife? (Han Yuh-Chieh, Associate Professor, Yu Da University of Science and
Technology, public hearing, 16 October 2014)

In the exchanges during the debate, these questions were used not to express curi-
osity regarding a lesbian couple’s daily life but to counter the use of gendered
familial appellations in a non-heterosexual relationship. This account implies
that whatever is gendered should also be exclusively heterosexual. For the delegate,
a lesbian should not use a gendered appellation, such as ‘wife’, to address her
partner because she herself could not be ‘the husband’. An individual’s gender,
the gender role and the designated appellation are perceived as a trinity.
An examination of the accounts of the public hearings on same-sex marriage
legislation reveals that terms of gendered familial appellation emerged as an issue,
and I argue that a Taiwanese version of the ideological operation of heteronorma-
tivity is revealed which holds a homogeneous and monolithic view of Taiwanese
society. This heteronormativity gains its normative status through denying diverse
everyday practices, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. In addition, this
view is not only heterosexual-centred but also very much Han-centred (or
Chinese-centred). This perspective projects a world which not only rules out homo-
sexuality but a world containing a specifically heterosexual gendered order, in
which individuals should follow a specific way of living, a very Han-culture
based mode of everyday practices. It ignores not only gender and sexual diversity,
but other social categories as well, such as ethnicity and culture.

Conclusion: Addressing heteronormativity in Taiwan

When I first learned that anti-gay groups were using the excuse of protecting and
preserving ‘traditional’ familial appellations to argue against the same-sex marriage
legislation, saying I was shocked would be an understatement. I have been follow-
ing the partnership rights movement in Taiwan since the 2000s. In addition, prior
to this research, familial appellation was one of my research interests. However, I
did not anticipate that the subject of familial appellation would occupy a place in
the debate. I started working on this study in order to make sense of this unex-
pected ‘hot issue’ in the social context of Taiwan in relation to heteronormativity.
While the anti-gay groups’ assertion remains unconvincing, some sensible impli-
cations have emerged in the process of making sense of the issue. Seeing the issue
12 Sexualities 0(0)

through the lens of interactionism on sexuality, I perceive the same-sex marriage

debate as a sense-making project and the legislation as a ‘rule-breaking’ process.
I argue that the public meetings and hearings are events in ‘a process of inter-
pretation’, in which ‘meanings are used and revised as instruments for the guidance
and formation of action’ (Blumer, 1969: 5). In this process, gendered and hetero-
sexual everyday practices are revealed and can no longer pass as the natural norm,
and neither can the heteronormative ideology that underpins it. This process of
revealing cannot be accomplished without the interactive engagement of both
the pro and con sides. The delegates have brought their own ‘social worlds’ into
the debate.
The use of so-called ‘traditional’ gendered familial appellations forms part of
common methods and everyday practices. Herbert Blumer argues that ‘the
‘‘worlds’’ [that] exist for human beings and for their groups are composed of
‘‘objects’’ and that these objects are the product of symbolic interaction’ (1969:
10). The meanings of objects are subject to indication and interpretation in our
social life. Blumer also categorizes objects into three types: the physical, the social
and the abstract. Borrowing Blumer’s categorization, I identify familial appella-
tions as terms referring to the social objects of familial relationships, such as a wife,
a husband, a daughter, and a son. Taiwan is a society with a culture that uses
relational appellations in everyday social interactions. It is a mundane social prac-
tice with meaningful implications, as the conventional appellations are mostly gen-
dered and originate from heterosexual family relationships. Therefore, the dispute
over gendered familial appellations in the context of the same-sex marriage debate
can be seen as a dispute over the meanings of the referred social objects.
‘Heteronormativity is effective because it defines not only normative sexual
practice but also a normal way of life’, and therefore ‘heterosexuality is both
sexual and asexual’ (Jackson and Scott, 2010a: 85). In this article, I have shown
that in the social context of Taiwan, the use of gendered familial appellations in
everyday social interaction is part of that normal way of life.
Taiwan is now a country recognizing same-sex marriage. ‘The Enforcement Act
of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748’ is the law that offers legal protection to
same-sex couples. Since same-sex marriage has been such a dividing issue, it is
reasonable to see that the legislation is a product of compromise. Firstly, the
name of the act highlights the spirit of Interpretation No. 748, yet it is also a
dodge to avoid using the term ‘marriage’ in the title. Secondly, according to
Article 2 of the act, the defined relationship is phrased as ‘two persons of the
same sex to create a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the pur-
pose of living a common life’. It is the exact wording delivered by the Justices in
Interpretation No. 748 to explain the nature of same-sex marriage. By doing so, the
law declares that the defined relationship is same-sex marriage but also awkwardly
prevents the relationship to be literally named as same-sex marriage. Thirdly, the
act does refer to Part Family and Part Succession of the Civil Code and state
applicable mutatis mutandis; however, familial terms are circumvented and the
same-sex couple are referred as ‘both parties’ in all articles. Those compromises
Chin 13

therefore accentuate that naming and familial terms are significant matters in the
legislation of same-sex marriage in Taiwan.
Due to the scale of this study, there is further potential material that is not
included as research data, for example, the records of forums and committee meet-
ings organized by the Legislative Yuan as well as other public sources, such as the
press release by related groups and organizations. More research is needed to
develop an advanced sociological interrogation. I am aware that my perspective
and approach can only offer a limited examination. There are still questions to be
answered, particularly those regarding heteronormativity and familial gendered
appellations. I intend to use this study as an initiative to invite further academic
engagement.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my special thanks to Professor Stevi Jackson, Dr Eva Li, Dr Ruby
Y.S. Lai and Cu Chen for their support and encouragement. I am grateful to the reviewers
for their comments and suggestions to make this a much stronger article. I, as the author,
remain responsible for any errors or inadequacies.

Disclosure
The author has reported no conflicts of interest.

ORCID iD
Ting-Fang Chin [Link]

Notes
1. The complete text of Interpretation No. 748 can be found at: [Link]
jcc/en-us/jep03/show?expno¼748 (accessed 2 January 2019).
2. Three referendum questions were successfully proposed by anti-gay Christian
groups, two targeting same-sex marriage and one targeting gender equity education.
The questions were No.10: ‘Do you agree that Civil Code regulations should restrict mar-
riage to being between a man and a woman?’, No.11: ‘Do you agree that the Ministry of
Education and individual schools should not teach homosexual-related education, as
detailed under the Enforcement Rules for the Gender Equity Education Act, in elemen-
tary and middle level schools?’ and No.12: ‘Do you agree to types of unions, other than
those stated in the marriage regulations in the Civil Code, to protect the rights of same-
sex couples who live together permanently?’ (Focus Taiwan, 2018).
3. However, it should be noted that this homosexualization is deeply gendered. For
instance, while gay men’s sexuality is stigmatized in relation to the HIV pandemic, les-
bians are generally regarded as ‘women who had not engaged in sexual risk practices’
(Patton, 1994).
4. In Taiwan, the equivalent term for ‘coming-out’ is chu guei [ ], which literally means
‘out of a closet’.
5. ‘Duo yuan’ [ ] means ‘diversity’. ‘Cheng jia’ [ ] means ‘to have a family’ or ‘to
establish a family’. The draft covered three different formations of familial relationships:
14 Sexualities 0(0)

same-sex marriage, civil partnership and multi-person familial partnership. From both
the title and the content of the draft, it is clear that the ultimate goal is not merely to
legalize same-sex marriage but also to rewrite the legal definitions of family and familial
relationships. For more details regarding the three different proposals, see Hsu Hsiu
Wen’s (Hsu, 2015) article on the matter.
6. The proposed multi-person familial partnership is designed to protect the legal rights of
individuals who support each other and develop familial relationships neither through
marriage nor consanguinity. Please see also note 5.
7. Chiu’s remark was also strongly contested by experts in folk-life studies, particularly the
part regarding the ancestral tablets, for it assumed the wording on a tablet represents
specific individuals. Rather, it is a general term to include all the deceased family members.
8. Although the analysis here focuses on same-sex marriage, it should be noted that the
scholarship on trans marriage also offers insightful discussion on contesting dominant
gendered terms of marriage and family (see Erni, 2014; Friedman, 2017).

References
Bachmann I (2011) Civil partnership–‘gay marriage in all but name’: A corpus-driven
analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora 6(1):
77–105.
Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Borrillo D (2005) Who is breaking with tradition? The legal recognition of same-sex part-
nership in France and the question of modernity. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism
17(1): 89–97.
Brainer A (2018) New identities or new intimacies? Rethinking ‘coming out’ in Taiwan
through cross-generational ethnography. Sexualities 21(5–6): 914–931.
Brown MJ (2004) Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on
Changing Identities. London: University of California Press.
Cheng YA, Wu FF and Adamczyk A (2017) Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in
Taiwan, 1995–2012. Chinese Sociological Review 48(4): 317–345.
Chin TF (2018) Everyday Gender at Work in Taiwan. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coolidge DO (1998) Playing the loving card: Same-sex marriage and the politics of analogy.
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 12(2): 201–238.
Denes A and Afifi TD (2014) Coming out again: Exploring GLBQ individuals’ communi-
cation with their parents after the first coming out. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 10(3):
298–325.
Einarsdóttir A (2013) ‘They married for love but keep it quiet’: Same-sex partners in Iceland.
Sexualities 16(7): 788–806.
Erni JN (2014) Marriage rights for transgender people in Hong Kong. In: Davis DS and
Friedman SL (eds) Wives, Husbands, and Lovers: Marriage and Sexuality in Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Urban China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 191–218.
Fang B (2017) ‘To amend Civil Code would definitely undermine social order’, Chiu Tai-
San: would it be daughter-in-law or son-in law? It would impact the mid and southern
part of Taiwan greatly [
]. The Storm Media [ ], 24 March. Available at: [Link]
mg/article/238233 (accessed 15 February 2018).
Chin 15

Focus Taiwan (2018) The 10 referendum questions Taiwanese are voting on, Focus Taiwan
24 November. Available at: [Link]
(accessed 18 April 2019).
Friedman SL (2017) Stranger anxiety: Failed legal equivalences and the challenges of intim-
ate recognition in Taiwan. Public Culture 29(3(83)): 433–455.
Fuss D (1991) Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York: Routledge.
Gagnon J and Simon W (1974) Sexual Conduct. London: Hutchinson.
Griffith KH and Hebl MR (2002) The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: ‘coming
out’ at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(6): 1191–1199.
Haider-Markel DP (2010) Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and
Policy Representation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Harton C (2018) Taiwan asked voters 10 questions. It got some unexpected answers. The
New York Times, 26 November. Available at: [Link]
world/asia/[Link] (accessed 30 December 2018).
Hekma G (2002) Imams and homosexuality: A post-gay debate in the Netherlands.
Sexualities 5(2): 237–248.
Herek GM (1999) AIDS and Stigma. American Behavioral Scientist 42(7): 1106–1116.
Hioe B (2017) The first Asian ‘country’, ‘place’, or ‘Chinese province’ to realize marriage
equality? New Bloom, 26 May. Available at: [Link]
taiwan-gay-marriage-coverage/ (accessed 31 January 2018).
Holms M (2009) Gender and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
Hsiau AC (1997) Language ideology in Taiwan: The KMT’s language policy, the Tai-yu
language movement, and ethnic politics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 18(4): 302–315.
Hsu VHW (2015) Colors of rainbow, shades of family: The road to marriage equality and
democratization of intimacy in Taiwan. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16(2):
154–165.
Huang HTM (2011) Queer Politics and Sexual Modernity in Taiwan. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Ingraham C (1994) The heterosexual imaginary: Feminist sociology and theories of gender.
Sociological Theory 12(2): 203–219.
Jackson S (1999) Heterosexuality in Question. London: SAGE.
Jackson S (2006) Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of
heteronormativity. Feminist Theory 7(1): 105–121.
Jackson S and Scott S (2010a) Theorizing Sexuality. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jackson S and Scott S (2010b) Rehabilitating interactionism for a feminist sociology of
sexuality. Sociology 44(5): 811–826.
Kandaswamy P (2008) State austerity and the racial politics of same-sex marriage in the US.
Sexualities 11(6): 706–725.
Kantsa V (2014) The price of marriage: Same-sex sexualities and citizenship in Greece.
Sexualities 17(7): 818–836.
Kessler SJ and McKenna W (1978) Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. London:
University of Chicago Press.
Kohler RC (2005) Narrative analysis. In: Kelly N, Horrocks C, Milnes K, et al. (eds)
Narrative, Memory & Everyday Life. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield,
pp. 1–7.
16 Sexualities 0(0)

Kuo L (2019) Taiwan becomes the first in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage. The Guardian,
17 May. Available at: [Link]
becomes-first-asian-county-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage (accessed 16 August 2019).
Lawrence JS, Husfeldt BA, Kelly JA, et al. (1990) The stigma of AIDS: Fear of disease and
prejudice toward gay men. Journal of Homosexuality 19(3): 85–102.
Lee P (2017) Queer activism in Taiwan: An emergent rainbow coalition from the assemblage
perspective. The Sociological Review 65(4): 682–698.
Lee Y (2019) Taiwan unveils Asia’s first draft law on same-sex marriage. Reuters, 21
February. Available at: [Link]
asias-first-draft-law-on-same-sex-marriage-idUSKCN1QA0I2 (accessed 15 April 2019).
McIntosh M (1968) The homosexual role. Social Problems 16(2): 182–192.
Nicol N and Smith M (2008) Legal struggles and political resistance: Same-sex marriage in
Canada and the USA. Sexualities 11(6): 667–687.
Oliver DG, Serovich JM and Mason TL (2005) Constraints and opportunities with interview
transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces 84(2): 1273–1289.
Orne J (2011) ‘You will always have to ‘‘out’’ yourself’: Reconsidering coming out through
strategic outness. Sexualities 14(6): 681–703.
Patton C (1994) Last Served? Gendering the HIV Pandemic. London: Taylor & Francis.
Pichardo JI (2011) We are family (or not): Social and legal recognition of same-sex rela-
tionships and lesbian and gay families in Spain. Sexualities 14(5): 544–561.
Platero R (2007) Love and the state: Gay marriage in Spain. Feminist Legal Studies 15(3):
329–340.
Radbord J (2005) Lesbian love stories: How we won equal marriage in Canada. Yale Journal
of Law & Feminism 17(1): 99.
Rahman M and Jackson S (2000) Gender & Sexuality: Sociological Approaches. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Ratele K (2016) Contesting ‘traditional’ masculinity and men’s sexuality in Kwadukuza
South Africa. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 108(3): 331–344.
Rauhala E (2017) A backlash against same-sex marriage tests Taiwan’s reputation for gay
rights. The Washington Post, 20 April. Available at: [Link]
world/asia_pacific/a-backlash-against-same-sex-marriage-tests-taiwans-reputation-for-
gay-rights/2017/04/19/f855c8b8-2004-11e7-bcd6-6d1286bc177d_story.html?utm_term¼.
fb841e33a46d (accessed 15 February 2018).
Reid G (2018) Taiwan referendum threatens same-sex marriage. Human Rights Watch, 10
October. Available at: [Link]
tens-same-sex-marriage (accessed 30 October 2018).
Reygan F and Lynette A (2014) Heteronormativity, homophobia and ‘culture’ arguments in
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sexualities 17(5–6): 707–723.
Rich A (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs 5(4): 631–660.
Rich TS (2016) Electoral paths and support for same-sex marriage legislation: Evidence
from Taiwan’s mixed-member system. International Political Science Review 38(5): 1–14.
Richardson D (1996) Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Sandel TL (2003) Linguistic capital in Taiwan: The KMT’s Mandarin language policy and
its perceived impact on language practices of bilingual Mandarin and Tai-gi speakers.
Language in Society 32(4): 523–551.
Chin 17

Scott J and Theron L (2017) The promise of heteronormativity: Marriage as a strategy for
respectability in South Africa. Sexualities 22(3): 436–451. DOI: 10.1177/
1363460717713384.
Seidman S (1997) Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidman S (2005) From polluted homosexual to the normal gay: Changing patterns of
sexual regulation in America. In: Ingraham C (ed.) Thinking Straight: New Work in
Critical Heterosexuality Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–62.
Sherkat DE (2017) Intersecting identities and support for same-sex marriage in the United
States. Social Currents 4(4): 380–400.
Simon W and Gagnon JH (1986) Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual
Behavior 15(2): 97–120.
Smith CP (2000) Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis HT and Judd CM (eds)
Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335.
Smith N (2017) Taiwan’s same-sex ruling could cement its place as Asia’s liberal beacon. The
Guardian, 22 May. Available at: [Link]
wans-same-sex-marriage-court-ruling-asias-liberal-beacon (accessed 14 February 2018).
Steger I (2018) How Taiwan battled fake anti-LGBT news before its vote on same-sex
marriage. QUARTZ, 22 November. Available at: [Link]
like-line-spread-anti-lgbt-fake-news-before-taiwan-same-sex-marriage-vote/ (accessed 15
April 2019).
Van der Toorn J, Jost JT, Packer DJ, et al. (2017) In defense of tradition: Religiosity,
conservatism, and opposition to same-sex marriage in North America. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 43(10): 1455–1468.
Veigh RM and Diaz MD (2009) Voting to ban same-sex marriage: Interests, values, and
communities. American Sociological Review 74(6): 891–915.
Wang FT, Bih HD and Brennan DJ (2009) Have they really come out: Gay men and their
parents in Taiwan. Culture, Health & Sexuality 11(3): 285–296.
Wang, HT (2006) Feminism and Family Law in Taiwan: The change of matrimonial prop-
erty law as example [ — ],
National Chung Cheng University Law Journal [ ] 21: 1–36.
West C and Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. Gender & Society 1(2): 125–151.
Yeh TD (2017) Good words hurt too: The cyberdiscourse against same-sex marriage in
Taiwan. Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 86: 69–110.
Young PD (2006) Same-sex marriage and the Christian Churches in Canada. Studies in
Religion/Sciences Religieuses 35(1): 1–23.

Ting-Fang Chin holds a PhD from the Centre for Women’s Studies at the
University of York, UK. She is the author of Everyday Gender at Work in
Taiwan (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). Her current research focus is on quotidian
gender practices in the workplace as well as marriage equality in Taiwan. She is a
member of the board of directors of the Taiwanese Feminist Scholars Association.