Taiwan’s Experience — A Little, Mountainous Island Country’s Journey in East Asia

Prisma Attorneys-at-law　Titan Deng

This article was originally written in Chinese and translated into English with the assistance of artificial intelligence.

Taiwan’s LGBTQ+ rights movement has developed hand in hand with the country’s democratization and its political, social, and legal reforms. After World War II ended, Taiwan’s 50 years under Japanese rule concluded. The Nationalist government, defeated in the Chinese Civil War, retreated to Taiwan and imposed martial law under the pretext of “suppressing rebellion.” This led to decades of White Terror and authoritarian rule. Not until the late 1980s did martial law end. Subsequent parliamentary reforms and constitutional amendments, together with rapid economic growth and social transformation from an agrarian society to a modern one, awakened civil society. Beyond literary portrayals or news reports of LGBTQ individuals, increasing numbers of people came out publicly, converging into a social movement for rights that helped drive legal change.

To introduce Taiwan’s development in LGBTQ+ rights, I have divided this journey into eight themes. Although these themes overlap in time, each represents a distinct stage in how Taiwanese society came to understand LGBTQ+ communities. This is also a chapter of Taiwan’s human rights history worth sharing with the world.

1.Criminal Defense in HIV/AIDS Cases: Judicial Shift in Taiwan — From Punishing Possibility of Transmission to Recognizing U=U and Redefining High-Risk Sexual Activity

Taiwan’s first local HIV case was recorded in 1986. At that time, faced with an incurable disease, the government adopted harsh and stigmatizing prevention policies. This was also the first time many Taiwanese collectively formed a public impression of gay men. The Department of Health launched fear-based education campaigns that described HIV/AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease “miserable to live with and shameful to die from.” In a conservative society where sexuality itself was taboo, HIV/AIDS became synonymous with “promiscuity” and was branded upon the gay community. Foreign nationals who tested HIV-positive were forcibly deported.

In 1990, the Legislative Yuan enacted the AIDS Infection Control Act, criminalizing sexual intercourse or blood donation by a person knowingly infected with HIV if it resulted in transmission to another person, with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. Incomplete offences—cases where transmission did not occur—were not punishable at that time. In 1997, the Act was amended to provide that the incomplete commission of transmission, meaning conduct creating a substantial risk of infection committed with conditional intent but without actual transmission occurring, would also constitute a criminal offence. The amendment raised the penalty to a serious felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than five years and not more than twelve years, and authorized the administrative authority to define “high-risk sexual activity” as “sexual acts involving unprotected direct contact with body fluids or mucous membranes that, in medical evaluation, carry a possible risk of transmission.”

Even after antiretroviral therapy (ART) became available in the late 1990s, fear and discrimination rooted in early misinformation remained, and the judiciary failed to shed its bias. In a 2012 case that drew media attention, the defendant was on stable treatment, had an undetectable viral load, and none of his thirteen partners contracted HIV. Despite expert testimony that the risk of transmission was “negligible,” the court sentenced him to eleven years in prison, reasoning that “objectively one cannot rule out the possibility of transmission.”

The Supreme Court’s interpretation disregarded the statutory requirement that “high-risk sexual activity” must be determined through “medical evaluation,” relying instead on the logic that “nonzero equals criminal.” This reasoning bound lower courts and led to convictions in numerous similar cases, revealing the judiciary’s enduring fear and prejudice.

In 2013, UNAIDS issued its guidance, “Ending overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: critical scientific, medical and legal considerations.” In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) formally recognized the medical fact of “undetectable equals untransmittable (U=U).” That same year, at the International AIDS Conference, thirty-two experts in HIV medicine and public health worldwide issued “An Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law,” urging governments to align their criminal policies with current scientific understanding.

In 2020, I co-counseled an appeal of a conviction that held “oral sex between an HIV-positive and HIV-negative man constituted high-risk behavior.” We cited the above international medical authorities to demonstrate that oral sex does not pose a significant transmission risk, successfully persuading the court to acquit. For the first time, the Taiwan High Court explicitly recognized the U=U principle, stating that “the assessment of high-risk sexual activity must evolve with medical advances,” overturning the prior judicial view that even “near-zero risk” still amounted to “risk exists.”

Although the prosecutors appealed, the Taiwan High Court again acquitted in 2022, and the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal, rendering the acquittal final. During the proceedings, in July 2021, the Ministry of Health and Welfare amended the definition of “high-risk sexual activity,” requiring that the conduct be “medically assessed as involving a significant risk of transmission.” The official rationale for the amendment explicitly incorporated the U=U principle into public policy, reflecting a shift driven by medical advancement.

2.The 1997 Changde Street Incident: Personal Liberty and the Limits of Police Power — From Street Chases to Constitutional Interpretation No. 535

In his acclaimed novel Crystal Boys, renowned Taiwanese writer Pai Hsien-yung depicted the lives of gay men gathering in Taipei’s New Park—what we now know as 228 Peace Memorial Park. He wrote:

“In our kingdom, there is only night, no day. At dawn, our kingdom vanishes, for it is an entirely illegitimate realm: we have no government, no constitution, no recognition, no respect. All we have are disorganized citizens… Our kingdom is pitifully small—only a few hundred meters long, and a hundred or so meters wide—confined to the area surrounding the rectangular lotus pond in the park.”

The origins of gay men gathering at 228 Park are hard to trace. But by the 1990s, the park had become a well-known site for socializing and meeting others for gay men. Every night, just before midnight, the park would close, with staff playing Goodnight song and locking the gates. Those who remained would typically move to nearby Changde Street, just in front of the old National Taiwan University Hospital building, to continue chatting or cruising.

Until Taiwan lifted martial law in 1987, night-time loitering was still seen as “suspicious.” Gay men were often viewed as potential criminals, and police would patrol 228 Park and Changde Street. Most would try to avoid them to escape harassment—ranging from verbal humiliation to being taken to the station and having their families contacted. Police, aware of the community’s fear of exposure, would often abuse their power under the guise of “maintaining public order.”

In 1996–1997, Taiwan experienced a wave of serious criminal cases that the police failed to solve. This led to increased pressure on law enforcement, who intensified their stop-and-search operations in public spaces. Late one night in July 1997, after the park had closed, Taipei police launched a mass roundup on Changde Street. Under the pretext of a “routine check,” officers demanded ID from those present, pushed dozens of men into police vans, took them to the station, recorded their names, and took their photos without due cause. One officer reportedly said, “We’ll keep doing this until no one dares go to Changde Street.”

In response, the Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Alliance and The Awakening Foundation held a public hearing titled “Whose Security? Whose Rights? Rethinking LGBT Rights After the Changde Street Incident.” They condemned the police for using public safety as a pretext to violate the community’s rights to assemble and socialize at night. For the first time, the so-called “disorganized citizens” Pai described began to organize and speak out publicly, forming the earliest prototype of an LGBT rights movement in Taiwan.

As Taiwanese society increasingly embraced concepts like “procedural justice” and “administration according to law,” public debate emerged around whether the Police Duties Enforcement Act provided a sufficient legal basis for such stop-and-frisk actions. In 1998, a man who was not part of the LGBT community was stopped and searched at night, insulted the officers, and was arrested and convicted. He filed a constitutional challenge, which led to Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 535 in 2001. The Constitutional Court ruled that police actions restricting personal liberty must comply with the constitutional principle of proportionality. It found that the law did not authorize arbitrary identity checks without clear constraints on time, place, or target. Moreover, unless the individual consented or could not verify their identity, the police could not force someone to accompany them to the station. Though this case didn’t directly concern the LGBT community, it marked a major victory in curbing police abuse and affirming civil liberties.

The Changde Street Incident was a pivotal moment in Taiwan’s LGBTQ+ movement. It marked the first time the community collectively engaged in human rights and legal reform. The subsequent reforms, following Interpretation No. 535, provided a legal foundation to push back against police overreach—and helped ensure that LGBTQ+ gathering spaces could survive and thrive.

3.The Death of a Feminine Boy: The Beginning of Legal Protection for Gender Expression and the Emergence of Gender Equality Legislation

In 1994, two students from Taipei First Girls’ High School, Shih Chi-Ya and Lin Ching-Hui, made a suicide pact and ended their lives by charcoal burning at a hotel in Yilan County. In their note they wrote: “Being a person is very hard. What makes life difficult for us is not the setbacks or pressures people usually imagine, but that the very nature of living in this society does not suit us.” These words revealed a profound sense of alienation and helplessness in confronting social reality.

In March 1998, another LGBTQ youth took their own life. This tragedy prompted Taiwan’s LGBTQ activists to begin organizing what became the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, a peer-support telephone service to accompany LGBTQ people—especially young people—struggling in isolation.

In April 2000, Yeh Yung-Chih, a student at Kaoshu Junior High School in rural Pingtung County, died after an incident in the school restroom. Because of his feminine gender expression, Yeh had long been subjected to bullying and ostracism. Classmates frequently jeered at him, even attempting to pull down his pants to “check” his genitals. To avoid crowded restrooms, he would ask teachers for permission to go before the break bell. On April 20th, he left the classroom but never returned. After class, his schoolmates found him in the bathroom with head trauma and bleeding from his head and nose; he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The case shocked Taiwan and forced society to confront its systemic indifference and discrimination toward gender-nonconforming students.

Yeh’s death became a turning point for Taiwan’s gender equality movement. The Ministry of Education convened an investigative team led by Chi Hui-Jung of the Gender Equality in Education Committee, which urged the government to take school gender issues seriously. As public attention grew, the Ministry renamed the “Committee on Gender Equality in Education” (formerly “Committee on Gender Equality Between the Sexes”) to reflect a broader scope. The Legislative Yuan revised its draft “Gender Equality in Education Act” to extend protections beyond “both sexes” to include “gender characteristics,” “gender identity,” and “sexual orientation,” and officially passed the renamed Gender Equity Education Act on June 23, 2004. The Tongzhi Hotline and other groups were invited into schools to conduct “real-life” gender equity education sessions.

As LGBTQ and gender groups grew stronger, Taiwan’s LGBTQ rights movement gained momentum in the early 2000s. Beginning in 2000, the Taipei City Government hosted the “LGBTQ Citizens’ Movement: Taipei Tongzhi Festival,” which included international guest speakers and booths run by LGBTQ organizations. In 2003, the fourth festival shifted from a static gathering to a march: about 500 people walked from 228 Park to the Red House Plaza in Ximen—the first pride parade in Sino-language sphere. From the following year onward, local groups self-funded the event, and the Taipei Pride Parade became an annual fixture on the last weekend of October, now the largest pride event in Asia.

Other cities soon followed. In 2010, Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan held its first pride parade. Yeh Yung-Chih’s mother, Chen Chun-Ju, stood on the stage and said passionately to the crowd: “You’ve finally come! Children, you must be brave. Heaven created you for a reason, to fight for human rights. Be yourselves. Don’t be afraid… I once swore an oath: I couldn’t save my own child, but I will save children like him!”

Tragically, in 2011, after the annual Taiwan Pride Parade, another student suicide occurred. A boy at Lujiang Junior High in New Taipei City jumped to his death, leaving behind a note expressing despair at being misunderstood and fearing he would be forgotten. To this day, LGBTQ groups continue to publish memorial pieces each year in his name—this article also honors his memory.

Almost simultaneously, anti-LGBTQ religious groups began systematically entering school counseling systems and parents’ associations, building nationwide networks such as the “Alliance of True Love” opposing LGBTQ-inclusive education. In 2018, anti-LGBTQ groups launched Referendum No. 11, which sought to “ban LGBTQ education in junior high and elementary schools.” This referendum, held alongside two others opposing same-sex marriage, passed successfully. Afterward, the Ministry of Education replaced the vague term “LGBTQ education” in its regulations with a more explicit mandate: “education on recognizing and respecting different genders, gender traits, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” While battles over gender equity education continue, since 2023 the Ministry has officially designated April 20 each year as Gender Equity Education Day.

4.Freedom of Sexual Expression: From the Seizure of Gay Bookstore’s Imported Nude Male Publications to Constitutional Interpretation No. 617 Protecting Softcore Content

In 1999, Gin Gin‘s Bookstore—the first gay bookstore in Asia—officially opened in Taipei. In 2003, the bookstore imported male nude magazines from Hong Kong, which were intercepted by customs and reported to the local district prosecutor’s office. Police, armed with a search warrant, raided the store and seized magazines that had been properly sealed and labeled as “restricted,” not for readers under 18. The store’s manager, J. J. Lai , was prosecuted and convicted under Article 235 of Taiwan’s Criminal Code for “distribution of obscene materials.”

The case sparked significant concern among gender and human rights groups. During Taiwan’s martial law era, the government had used the Publication Act to strictly regulate speech. The Government Information Office had previously issued administrative interpretations defining “obscene” publications, but the term remained ambiguous and inconsistently applied. Critics questioned whether the law met the constitutional principle of “legal clarity.” In 1996, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court (Council of Grand Justices) issued Interpretation No. 407, which defined obscene publications as materials that, “objectively, are capable of arousing or satisfying sexual desire, cause shame or disgust in ordinary people, and harm sexual morality or social decency.” Judges were permitted to make case-by-case determinations based on prevailing social standards—an approach the court said did not violate the principle of clarity.

Under this framework, male nude photography was easily categorized as “obscene,” due to the assumed disgust or shame of “ordinary people.” However, for the LGBTQ community, such publications were meaningful cultural tools for expressing desire and constructing sexual identity. When the state bans these materials as “obscene” and criminally prosecutes those who possess or distribute them, it effectively discriminates against and suppresses sexual minority cultures.

After being convicted, J. J. Lai petitioned the Constitutional Court for interpretation. In 2006, the court issued Interpretation No. 617, explicitly recognizing that “freedom of sexual expression” is protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech. Building on Interpretation No. 407, the court drew a distinction between “hardcore” and “softcore” obscene content. It ruled that while hardcore materials—such as those involving violence, sexual abuse, or bestiality—should be judged based on whether they have artistic, medical, or educational value, general softcore content should not be automatically criminalized, so long as it is properly packaged and shielded from minors or those who do not wish to view it.

The justices further emphasized that while the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining public moral order and shared values, it must also respect and protect the freedom of minority sexual cultures to express their own moral perspectives and access sexual information.

This case marked a critical step forward for sexual expression rights in Taiwan and signaled the beginning of legal recognition for queer culture under principles of equality. For many LGBTQ individuals, it was the first time the state formally acknowledged that even those belonging to minority communities are entitled to constitutional protection—and should not be excluded from the public cultural and expressive sphere. The spirit of this interpretation continues to influence cases involving sexual expression in online spaces, and even extends to freedom of expression in physical public settings.

5.Same-Sex Marriage Legalization: Constitutional Litigation, Referendums, and Legislation — From Individual Struggles to Constitutional Interpretation No. 748, Then to Heated National Referendums and Legislative Actions

The legalization of same-sex marriage stands as one of the most prominent milestones in the development of LGBTQ+ rights in Taiwan. In 2006, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Hsiao Bi-khim introduced the first draft bill on same-sex marriage, but the proposal was never substantively reviewed and was quickly rejected by a coalition of major political parties. In fact, even before any formal legislative proposal, Chi Chia-wei—a longtime activist who came out publicly at a press conference in 1986—had been the lone voice advocating for marriage equality in Taiwan.

Chi persistently petitioned various government bodies—including the Legislative Yuan, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, and local courts—either seeking legal reform or directly applying to marry a man. In 1998, after his notarized marriage application was denied, he filed a lawsuit and petitioned for constitutional interpretation in 2000. However, in 2001, the Constitutional Court declined to hear the case, citing the lack of a concrete legal dispute and characterizing his petition as merely personal critique of the existing marriage system. Still, Chi did not give up.

In 2012, Chi again applied to register a same-sex marriage and initiated administrative litigation. The case advanced through the administrative courts and was ultimately represented before the Supreme Administrative Court by lawyer Victoria H. W. Hsu, of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR). Yet again, the claim was rejected. In 2013, TAPCPR proposed a comprehensive “Diverse Family Formation” Civil Code amendment, which included three key frameworks: marriage equality, a civil partnership system, and a family-member system. The proposals triggered strong backlash from conservative religious groups. Among the three, only the marriage equality section was formally introduced to the legislature by DPP legislator Cheng Li-chun, but it stalled during committee review.

In August 2015, with Victoria Hsu’s assistance, Chi filed another petition for constitutional interpretation. This coincided with the run-up to Taiwan’s presidential election. For the first time, a major presidential candidate—Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP—openly expressed support for marriage equality in her campaign ad. After Tsai’s election in 2016, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage began to grow. The momentum intensified when a French professor at National Taiwan University, Jacques Picoux, died by suicide after legal barriers prevented him from making decisions for his deceased same-sex partner. This tragedy shocked the public and prompted renewed legislative efforts. DPP legislator Dagmar M. N. Yu, alongside cross-party colleagues, introduced a new Civil Code amendment. Other parties and individual legislators followed suit with competing drafts.

From November 2016, as the proposed amendments were reviewed in the legislature, public attention surged. Supporters and opponents of marriage equality staged mass protests in front of the Legislative Yuan and the Presidential Office. On December 10, the Marriage Equality Coalition held a concert titled “Let No More Lives Be Lost – Stand for Marriage Equality,” drawing over 250,000 people to Ketagalan Boulevard. On December 26, the amendment passed committee review and entered inter-party negotiation.

On March 24, 2017, the Constitutional Court held an oral hearing for Chi’s petition. In an emotional courtroom statement, Chi declared, “I’ve waited 41 years, 6 months, and 24 days for this moment.” Presiding Justice Hsu Chung-li announced that the ruling would be issued within two months. On May 24, 2017, the Court released Interpretation No. 748, declaring that the current Civil Code’s failure to recognize same-sex couples’ right to marry violated both freedom of marriage and equality rights. The ruling required the legislature to enact laws within two years. If no legislation was passed, same-sex couples would automatically gain the right to marry based on the interpretation alone.

However, this constitutional victory did not immediately result in social consensus. Conservative religious groups, anti-LGBTQ organizations, and even a newly-formed religious political party quickly mobilized to launch three national referendums: to define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, to ban LGBTQ-inclusive education in schools, and to establish a separate law for same-sex partnerships. These referendums were held alongside the 2018 local elections and all three passed with overwhelming majorities (roughly 6 to 7 million votes), while pro-marriage equality counter-referendums failed. The DPP suffered a major defeat in local elections, significantly weakening President Tsai’s administration. The referendum battles caused deep social division, with intense campaigning, rallies, and public debates. Many LGBTQ supporters experienced increased tensions in family and social relationships. After the referendum results, the LGBTQ community and its allies were engulfed in grief and helplessness.

The deadline imposed by Interpretation No. 748 was May 24, 2019. In response to the ruling and the referendum results, the Executive Yuan proposed the Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748 (commonly referred to as the “748 Implementation Act” or the “Same-Sex Marriage Special Act”), which offered a compromise—avoiding the term “marriage” in the law’s title but allowing same-sex couples to register their marriage. Under the leadership of Premier Su Tseng-chang, the act passed the Legislative Yuan on May 17, 2019, and came into effect on May 24. Taiwan thus became the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage.

Even so, the special act framework means that same-sex marriage is not entirely equal to heterosexual marriage under the law. This compromise reflected the legal, political, and social tug-of-war surrounding marriage equality. Chi Chia-wei’s decades-long fight did not end with the legislation, and President Tsai fulfilled her campaign promise within her first term. Notably, society did not collapse, as anti-LGBTQ groups had warned during the referendum campaigns, and their fear-based arguments lost credibility.

6.Gaps in the Marriage Equality Act: The Transitional Period and Cross-Border Same-Sex Marriages

Although the 748 Implementation Act was passed in 2019, the two-year transitional period between the 2017 constitutional ruling and the enactment of this law created a legal vacuum. I believe that once the Constitutional Court issued its interpretation affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry, this constitutional mandate had immediate effect. The subsequent legislation merely provided a statutory framework, and same-sex couples should have already been entitled to spousal rights. However, the 748 Implementation Act did not address how to protect or recognize the rights of same-sex couples during this transitional period, resulting in a legal gap.

This issue was central in the case of Hu Sheng-hsiang v. Bureau of Labor Insurance (BLI). After the 2017 ruling, Hu and his partner Pan Shih-hsin held a wedding ceremony. As there was still no legal means for same-sex couples to register their marriage, they could only have their status noted as “same-sex partners” at the household registration office—an annotation with no legal effect. Tragically, not long after the wedding, Pan collapsed due to a rare vascular disease. Hu took on full caregiving responsibilities until Pan passed away later that year. Hu then applied to the BLI for a spousal funeral subsidy, but his application was denied on the grounds that he was “not a legal spouse.”

I, along with two other lawyers, provided pro bono legal representation for Hu in an administrative lawsuit. In August 2019, the court ruled in Hu’s favor. The judgment held that Interpretation No. 748 declared the “constitutional defect of insufficient regulation,” and that even before the completion of legislation, courts could, without infringing upon legislative powers, apply constitutional reasoning and legal interpretation to render judgments in line with constitutional intent. The court stated that it should judge the existence of a spousal relationship based on the facts at the time of Pan’s death, applying the law in force and in accordance with the constitution. It held that both heterosexual and same-sex marriages require certain legal elements: written agreement, signatures of more than two witnesses, and registration. In this case, Hu and Pan had held a public wedding attended by many, with guests signing a guestbook to witness their commitment. They had also registered as same-sex partners. The court deemed this registration a substitute for formal marriage registration and recognized the existence of a spousal relationship. The administrative agency did not appeal, making the ruling final.

However, while this case succeeded in the administrative courts, I also handled a similar civil case involving the transitional period. In that case, one party passed away before same-sex marriage legislation was completed, resulting in an inheritance dispute. Because civil courts are stricter about protecting third-party interests, the court ultimately rejected the claim, reasoning that no legal marriage had been established in Taiwan and that the transitional period did not constitute a legal loophole but was a deliberate decision by the legislature.

Another major issue involved cross-border same-sex marriages. The 748 Implementation Act did not specify conflict-of-law rules (i.e., private international law) for same-sex marriages involving foreign nationals. As a result, after the Act came into effect, the government only allowed marriages between Taiwanese citizens and foreign nationals from countries where same-sex marriage was already legal. Taiwanese citizens could not marry foreign nationals from jurisdictions that did not recognize same-sex marriage.

TAPCPR provided legal assistance in several administrative lawsuits involving such cross-border couples. One such case involved Chi Chia-wei’s attempt to marry a Malaysian citizen; others involved partners from Hong Kong, Macau, and Japan—none of which recognized same-sex marriage at the time. In every case, the administrative courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that Taiwan’s legal system—anchored in constitutional equality—constituted a public order exception under private international law. Therefore, foreign laws that prohibited same-sex marriage could be disregarded in favor of Taiwan’s public order. Eventually, the administrative authorities acknowledged that Taiwan’s legal order should take precedence, allowing same-sex marriage registration even with nationals of countries where such unions were not legally recognized.

However, the situation was more complex when it came to cross-strait same-sex marriages involving citizens from China. Unlike heterosexual cross-strait marriages—which follow a long-established procedure governed by a special law, the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (rather than general private international law)—same-sex marriage faces greater hurdles. For heterosexual couples, the marriage must first be registered in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with the Chinese spouse obtaining a marriage certificate before applying for registration in Taiwan, often involving interviews and cumbersome procedures. Still, there is no question of eligibility to marry.

In contrast, since same-sex marriage is legal in Taiwan but not in China, same-sex couples face legal uncertainty. They cannot register their marriage in the PRC, nor can they fulfill the same steps required for cross-strait heterosexual marriage. Within the LGBTQ+ community in Taiwan, there has been internal debate and skepticism about cross-strait same-sex marriages, particularly in light of China’s increasing international pressure against Taiwan. These cases remain rare, and community perspectives are shaped by a complex mix of legal, political, and social factors.

TAPCPR has assisted in an extremely rare case involving a cross-strait same-sex couple who registered their marriage in a third country. In that lawsuit, the administrative court ruled that since same-sex marriage reflects Taiwan’s legal order, and the couple had already legally married under foreign law, Taiwan’s Immigration Agency should interview the Chinese spouse and process their registration. Following the court’s judgment, the agency granted the interview, and the Chinese spouse successfully came to Taiwan and completed the marriage registration. They are now applying for residency based on family reunification.

7. Same-Sex Adoption and Family Formation: From Stepparent Adoption to Joint and Successive Adoption ,and The Stalled Progress of Assisted Reproduction Law Reform

When the 748 Implementation Act was passed, it did not extend the provisions of the Civil Code or the Assisted Reproduction Act that apply to parent-child relationships in heterosexual marriages to same-sex couples. Instead, it only allowed adoption under the Civil Code and limited it to stepparent adoption — that is, one party adopting the biological child of the other. According to the legislative records, lawmakers intended to protect “children already existing within same-sex relationships,” including those born from prior heterosexual relationships or via assisted reproduction overseas. The legislative design clearly avoided granting same-sex couples the same parentage rights as heterosexual couples from the outset, out of concern that doing so might provoke societal backlash against same-sex marriage.

However, this limitation created a dual restriction for same-sex adoptive parents. While a single person could adopt a child before marriage, once they entered into a same-sex marriage, they could no longer adopt as a single individual, nor could they jointly adopt with their spouse. Furthermore, if a child had already been adopted by one party before the marriage, the other partner could not subsequently adopt that child. From the adoptee’s perspective, a child adopted by a same-sex couple would have only one legal parent, whereas a child adopted by a heterosexual couple could have two.

Following the enactment of the 748 Implementation Act, I handled several same-sex adoption cases, but they were limited to the permitted stepparent adoption model. Over time, however, as the law remained unchanged, more and more cases emerged that fell outside the law’s scope, revealing the need for reform. We encountered cases where two partners sought to jointly adopt a sibling’s children but were denied by the courts due to their same-sex relationship, even before they had legally married. In other cases, one partner had already begun the process of adopting a non-biological child. But after the 748 Act was enacted, the law’s prohibition against joint adoption meant that marrying would automatically terminate the probationary adoption period. Social workers assigned by the court required couples to complete the adoption process before marrying, and even after marriage, the adopted child could not legally have two parents.

In response to these legal shortcomings, civil society organizations — including the Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy, the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, and the Taiwan Equality Campaign — in 2021 provided support for several same-sex families who wished to adopt the child previously adopted by one partner as a single individual. I was honored to join a legal team with several fellow attorneys working on these public interest cases. One couple successfully obtained court recognition at the first instance. In another case, which I assisted, the court rejected the application, reasoning that the petitioner had been aware of the legal prohibition against successive adoption at the time her partner adopted the child. Our legal team filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the law violated the rights to equality, freedom of adoption, and family formation for both adoptive parents and adopted children. It also contradicted the best interest principle and Taiwan’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, raising concerns of unconstitutionality. The appellate court agreed and ordered a stay of proceedings while referring the case to the Constitutional Court for further review.

Under continued pressure from civil society and with society’s growing acceptance of same-sex families following marriage equality, lawmakers gradually came to a bipartisan consensus that there was no meaningful difference between the needs of same-sex and opposite-sex families regarding parenting. On May 17, 2023, just the same day four years later the pass of 748 Implementation Law, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to the 748 Implementation Act, allowing joint adoption and the adoption of a partner’s biological or adopted child. Consequently, the constitutional challenge we were involved in became moot.

Meanwhile, demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among LGBTQ+ individuals has grown over time. This has led to broader societal reflection on the fairness and adequacy of Taiwan’s current Assisted Reproduction Act, which only permits ART for infertile heterosexual married couples — and only when the wife has a uterus. In other words, ART requires at least one of the couple’s own gametes, and the wife must carry the pregnancy. This framework excludes single women, lesbian couples, and gay male couples from accessing ART services in Taiwan. Despite Taiwan’s world-leading reproductive medicine capabilities, LGBTQ+ individuals must travel abroad to pursue ART.

Currently, several bills have been proposed to amend the Assisted Reproduction Act by legislators from both the ruling and opposition parties, as well as by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The most controversial issue concerns whether to allow surrogacy, which has sparked intense debate over potential class and gender exploitation. As a result, society has yet to reach a consensus. LGBTQ+ families and reproductive rights thus remain trapped in a dual bottleneck — legal and social. Going forward, Taiwan must find a way to protect LGBTQ+ families while balancing gender justice and broader public consensus.

8.Outdated Human Rights–Violating Administrative Orders Ignored by the Constitutional Court: The Legal Gender Change Litigation for Transgender Individuals

Taiwan operates a household registration system under which every citizen must register personal information—including gender—with local household registration offices, which then issue national identification cards. According to the Household Registration Act, any change in registered information must be formally recorded. Thus, a transgender citizen wishing to legally change their gender must apply for such registration in order to receive a new ID card.

However, the law does not explicitly prescribe the requirements for legal gender change. In 2008, the Ministry of the Interior issued an administrative interpretation mandating that applicants must undergo the removal of their reproductive organs (i.e., ovaries, penis, or testicles) and submit two psychiatric evaluations in order to qualify for a gender marker change.

This requirement—forcing individuals to undergo physically invasive procedures that significantly impact bodily integrity and health—was imposed through administrative order rather than statutory law. Such practice violates the constitutional principle of “legal reservation”, which requires that important rights restrictions be based on formal legislation. Since 2019, the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR) has assisted transgender individuals in filing several administrative lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of this interpretation, advocating for gender marker changes based on medical evaluation or other non-surgical criteria.

As litigation progressed, a number of administrative courts ruled that the 2008 interpretation violated the principle of legal reservation and was therefore unconstitutional. This view gradually became mainstream within the judiciary. However, after rejecting the interpretation, some judges noted the absence of legal standards for determining gender—a situation similar to the same-sex marriage legal gap prior to 2019. As the executive branch delayed resolution and failed to submit legislative proposals, these judges suspected legislative inaction and referred the issue to the Constitutional Court.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court refused to hear the case. It argued that judges are not bound by unconstitutional administrative interpretations, and since several court rulings had already allowed gender marker changes without requiring surgery, the petitioners had not provided sufficient justification for a constitutional review.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of the Interior continues to argue that legal gender recognition involves cross-ministerial coordination, and thus remains under review with no conclusive outcome. As a result, the original 2008 interpretation remains in effect. In practice, applications by transgender individuals who haven’t taken the surgery to change their legal gender are still routinely denied. If an individual files an administrative appeal, the responsible agency generally chooses not to appeal after losing the case—forming a de facto policy of “no further appeal after loss.” This means transgender persons must continue to litigate each case individually to gain the right to update their documents. As a result, legal gender recognition remains inaccessible as a standardized procedure, and the ongoing need to litigate imposes significant time and financial burdens—especially harmful to a community already facing systemic social disadvantages.

Beyond the courtroom, the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association has, since 2019, organized an annual Transgender March on the eve of Taiwan Pride. It is the only such event in Asia. In 2025, the march drew over 3,000 transgender individuals and their family members or allies, demonstrating growing visibility and solidarity in the public sphere.

Conclusion: Calling on the International Community to Recognize Taiwan’s Hard-Won Achievements in LGBT+ Rights Movements and to Join Us as Partners in Advancing Human Rights Rooted in Democracy, Freedom, and the Rule of Law

When people around the world hear “Taiwan,” many first think of the world-leading semiconductor giant TSMC. Others think of the powerful neighbor across the Taiwan Strait that denies Taiwan’s sovereignty and exerts political pressure. Yet beyond these headlines lies another Taiwan—one whose people deeply value public good, social progress, and international solidarity.

Taiwan’s LGBTQ+ rights movement has never existed in isolation; it has always stood shoulder-to-shoulder with other social movements. Since martial law ended, Taiwan’s society has ridden the wave of democratic reform, and the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights has been hard-won—often born of tragedy, sparking dialogue, reflection, and empathy. It is thanks to countless activists, including many lawyers and legal professionals investing their passion and expertise, that we have today’s achievements.

LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. But progress in human rights is never indestructible. It faces constant external threats from authoritarian regimes and can backslide under domestic political tides, conservative backlash, social insecurity, or fear. Once democracy collapses, these rights can vanish overnight.

As advocates for law and human rights, Taiwan’s lawyers will continue working to advance legal, social, and cultural reform. We hope the international community will recognize Taiwan’s efforts, not only for its economic or strategic importance, but also by standing with us as partners in the values of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law—protecting the dignity, autonomy, and equality of all people. This small, mountainous island nation is not only Taiwan for the Taiwanese. It is also Taiwan for the world.