性別自主決定權──兼論長髮男警案

The Right to Gender Self-Determination Also on the Policeman with Long Hair

行政訴訟實務上，男警因蓄長髮而遭遇連續記過免職一案，引發了跨性別者是否有性別自主決定權，及其衍生之一系列權利之爭議。而在討論「性別自主決定權」是否為憲法所保障之權利以前，尤須確認：個人有無自主決定所屬性別之權利？「性別」作為重要之個人資訊，所得主張之保護範圍射程為何？是性別於法律上，甚至是憲法上有何意義，當屬本文討論後續保障範圍與方式前，至關重要之先行確認事項。
本文嘗試以比較法，尤其是判決經驗，建構出性別自主決定權之功能與範圍，並定之內涵為：「憲法第22條所保障之人格權，包括於隱私之性領域方面，就其自我性別之認同，以及以如何之外在表現形式呈現，均得自主決定之權利。」為本案續為憲法審查時提供切入之視角。

In administrative litigation practice, the continuous dismissal of long haired male police officers has sparked controversy over whether transgender individuals have gender autonomy and a series of related rights. Before discussing whether“Gender Self-Determination”is a constitutional right, it should be confirmed whether individuals have the right to independently decide their gender? What is the range of protection that can be claimed for gender as important personal information? What is the significance of gender in the law, and even in the constitution, should be given priority recognition.
This article attempts to construct the function and scope of gender self-determination based on foreign theories, especially judicial experience. The connotation is:“The personality rights protected by Article 22 of the Constitution, including the sexual field of privacy, the right to self gender identity, and the right to make independent decisions in any external manifestation.”This may provide a perspective for the constitutional review of this case.