關於 public power definition ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

淺談「假新聞」

最近上課時學到一個新單字「positionality」，讓我想到當前社群媒體上，不停看到的「fake news」——假新聞。

簡言之，「positionality」(位置性) 被定義為於種族、階級、性別、性取向以及能力等狀態中，創造你身分的社會與政治背景。位置性還描述了你的身分如何影響你對世界的理解與看法，以及潛在的偏見。

positionality 位置性；定位
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/3390885/
https://www.lexico.com/definition/positionality

以下是我對「positionality」與 「fake news」的些許觀點：

“Fake news” has permeated all facets of life, ranging from social media interaction to presidential elections. Fake news can be defined as “fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent” (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094). The creators and outlets of fake news do not ensure the accuracy and credibility of information, but rather disseminate misinformation or disinformation for purposes ranging from personal amusement to creating deceptions to achieve political aims. At times, fake news is created and disseminated by state or non-state actors using social media accounts and networks of bots designed to hijack feed algorithms of platforms such as Twitter or Facebook (Prier, 2017, p. 54). In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Facebook estimated that up to 60 million bots were used to post political content. Some of the same bots were then used in an attempt to influence the 2017 French election (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095). Such campaigns can be understood as a form of information warfare, a comprehensive attempt to control and influence every facet of the information supply chain, thereby influencing public opinion and behaviors. (Prier, 2017, p. 54). Often, fake news is not directly created by actors that seek to manipulate but by journalists or content creators whose content favors or aligns with the narratives of these actors (Doshi, 2020).

從社群媒體的互動到總統選舉，「假新聞」（fake news）已滲透至生活的各個層面。假新聞可被定義為「在形式上而非組織過程或意圖上，模仿新聞媒體內容所捏造的資訊」（Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094）。無論是出於個人愛好或為達政治目的而有所欺瞞，假新聞的製造者與傳播管道並不保證資訊的準確性與可信度，反而是為了散播錯誤訊息（misinformation）或扭曲訊息（disinformation）。有時，假新聞是由國家或非國家行為者（state or non-state actors）所製造與傳播，藉由社群媒體帳號及網絡機器人來劫持諸如臉書與推特等平臺的推送演算法（Prier, 2017, p. 54）。在2016年的美國總統大選中，臉書估計有多達６千萬個機器人被用來發布政治貼文。其中，有部分機器人被用於影響隔年的法國大選（Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095）。此類行動可視為資訊戰（information warfare）的一種形式，一種對控制與影響資訊供應鏈各環節的全面嘗試，從而影響公眾輿論與行為（Prier, 2017, p. 54）。假新聞通常是由記者或內容創造者（content creators）所創造，而非試圖操弄的行為者，前者的內容偏好符合後者的敘事（Doshi, 2020）。

Nevertheless, while the term “fake news” is commonplace, there is no universal, measurable way to quantify the fakeness or truthfulness of news. There are many fact-checking and media-bias detection tools, but they cannot objectively detect and clarify the more subtle and nuanced aims of manipulative actors that play a crucial role in news production. It can also be argued that the veracity of news depends not only on the actors that seek to manipulate it, but also on the positionality of its consumers. Therefore, one’s initial line of defense against misleading news lies not in the plethora of fact-checking devices but more in one’s pre-existing dispositions and skills to think and act in response to misleading information. This ability can be referred to as critical thinking, which can be more concretely expounded as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2011, p. 15).

然而，即便「假新聞」一詞隨處可見，卻沒有統一、可衡量的方式來量化新聞的虛假性或真實性。目前有許多事實查核與媒體偏見檢測工具，但它們無法客觀地檢測與說明行為操弄者更狡猾、更細緻的目標，而這些操弄者往往在新聞的生產中發揮著重要作用。我們也可以說，新聞的真實性不僅取決於試圖操弄它的行為者，同時還取決於新聞受眾的位置性。因此，一個人對抗誤導性新聞的第一道防線，不在於這些五花八門的事實查核方式，反而在於個人所固有的性格，以及針對誤導性資訊的思考與行動等相關技能。這種能力可稱為批判性思考（critical thinking），意即「專注於決定相信什麼或做什麼的理性思考與反思性思考」（Ennis, 2011, p. 15）。

Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC), is at the forefront of information warfare. It is wedged between the geopolitical struggles of global and regional hegemonies such as the United States and China, the People's Republic of China (PRC). Compounding the matter are the Taiwan’s own political actors vying for influence and power. This struggle seeps into all aspects of life and practice, mainly manifesting itself on social media, a battleground of information warfare. The Ministry of Education of Taiwan is cognizant of these information campaigns, and efforts have been made to introduce media literacy into all parts of its education system. According to the ministry, the government has tried to promote media literacy education since 2000 (MOE, 2002, p. 1), with one of its primary goals to cultivate its “citizens” abilities for independent learning, critical thinking, and problem solving” (MOE, 2002, p. 2).

臺灣，也被稱為中華民國，正處於資訊戰的最前線。這是全球霸權與地區霸權之間——如美國與中國（中華人民共和國）——的地緣政治對抗。使問題惡化的是臺灣自身的政治行動者對影響力與權力的奪取。這場對抗遍布於現實生活的各個面向，主要於社群媒體中——資訊戰的戰場——展露無遺。臺灣的教育部注意到了這些資訊的煙硝，並已努力將媒體素養引入其教育體系。據該部稱，自2000年以來，政府一直試圖推展媒體素養教育（MOE, 2002, p. 1），其主要目標之一是培養「公民獨立學習、批判性思考以及解決問題的能力。」（MOE, 2002, p. 2）。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

上述段落認為，由於個人的位置性(positionality)，「假新聞」極難定義。此外，有許多人把不符合自身成見與偏好的新聞逕斥為假新聞。這其實相當危險，因為個人觀點將會變得愈發孤立與激進。

閱聽人應意識到，他們在網路上看到的每個資訊都有特定立場。是否真有毫無立場的新聞文章？為了對抗操弄性或強制性資訊（coercive information），我們必須意識到權力於個中的作用，以及我們自身的位置性如何形塑我們的詮釋。這是我們的第一道防線。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

參考文獻

Doshi, R. (2020, January). China steps up its information war in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-01-09/china-steps-its-information-war-taiwan

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational leadership, 43(2), 44-48.

Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.

MOE (Ministry of Education), Taiwan. (2002). White paper on media literacy educational policy. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/ 2122416591771.pdf

Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly: SSQ, 11(4), 50-85.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

教育時評: http://bit.ly/39ABON9

相關詞彙: https://bit.ly/2UncrfI

TED相關影片: https://bit.ly/3BDsDKl

【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ

整理資料發現近兩年前去某國際研討會分享 #手天使 心得時的講稿，當時把我知道的議題面向都寫進去了。貼上來給有興趣的朋友。

[[slide page 1]]
Thank you for attending this part.
I'm from Hand Angel, a non-profit organization of Taiwan.

The title of my presentation is "As a sex worker and a sex volunteer",
since I'm both a sex worker, and also attending Hand Angel as a sex volunteer.

[[slide page 2]]
Allow me to introduce my organization more,
though you may know some from what Vincent has said in the morning.

Our main tenet is sexual rights to people with disabilities.

[[slide page 3]]
This includes not only orgasm, but also the right to control one's sexuality with autonomy and without discrimination.
People know us usually because we provide limited sexual service for servere physical or visual disabilities, including females.

Hand Angel is not a registered organization in Taiwan,
since we literally provide sexual service, which is considered against public order and morals.

However, we are still able to initiative our idea on the table
because our service are free, which means we actually do not violate any law.

[[slide page 4]]
In Taiwan, the definition of "sexual transaction" includes obscene acts in exchange for monetary,
which means it's considered transactional sex even there is no sexual intercourse.
And since transactional sex is technically illegal in Taiwan,
there's no legal way for us to charge anything by providing any service which may be considered obscenity.

This is much different in other countries.
In Japan, the law prohibiting sexual transaction only applies to intercourse between one male and one female. That's why White Hands and NOIR are able to provide paid handjob. The other reason is that they seem do not locate their service as sexual transaction. We can talk about this difference later.
And in Hong Kong, there's some way for sex workers not to be punished, which is called "one-woman brothel". So the difficulty for people with disabilities to satisfy their sexual desire would be different.

I, who has been a sex worker for years -- under the table, of course -- was invited to join Hand Angel at its very beginning.
[[slide page 5]]
People keep asking me that how a sex worker would think about a free sexual service.
But before that question, I think it's more important for us to know the difference other than money.
What's the difference between a classical transactional sex and our service?

As a sex worker, I hope my customers will come back to me more and more, as many times as they can pay.
But as a member of Hand Angel, I hope the servees would not need us anymore.
In fact, I hope they don't have to come to us at the very beginning.

The reason why people with disabilities may need sexual service, is the absence of sexual resource, the resource to fulfill one's sexual desire.

This is just like other issues of disabilities.
[[slide page 6]]
Just providing a service would not resolve the structural problem.

For example, if you give food to the poor without changing their situation, you would end up finding out that they're still poor.
Now change the "food" to "sex".
If we just give our own sex to those who barely have sexual resource, we'll end up exploiting ourselves, and their bad situation still remains.

The problem is, disabled people are considered abnormal, and they have been treated as no unnecessary needs.
But what is necessary for a person to live her own life instead of just survive?
In our issue, disabled people are usually considered asexual, and seldom sexy. That's the stigma we're going to break down.

[[slide page 7]]
There are some textures talking about disabled people in love and having sex, such as "Scarlet Road", "Sex on Wheels", and "The Sessions".
However, the narrative are usually based on ableism.
Viewers usually focus on how can the service provider "bear" to have sex with disabled people, instead of seeing the obstacles disabled people encounter.

[[slide page 8]]
A feminist has said that the relationship a disabled person has is considered depending on the compassion of the other person. People think their sexuality is disgusting and only saints are able to tolerate it.

So we can see the problem is not only physical obstacles, but also how we think about intimate relationship a disabled person deserves.

[[slide page 9]]
Does Hand Angel care about intimate issue? The answer is yes.
In our service, we provide not only sexual service. Our target is not the physical orgasm, but the infinite opportunity of their own lives.
Here are two examples.

[[slide page 10]] Little Prince
Since this servee can sense nothing below his waist, a classical handjob would be meaningless.
Fortunately, we have a BDSM queen in our team.
She thought of techniques in SM to check how pain it is to the slave, and use the same trick to check how the servee's body can feel.
I have to emphasize: that was not a medical treatment, that was about communication with each other.
They were talking about the feeling of two people, instead of the body of one person.
The whole process relies on the intimacy between the sex volunteer and the servee.

[[slide page 11]] ND
"Strolling" for him was from his room to the front door of his home.
Uh, I'm not talking about he lives in a big house.
Though using an electric wheelchair, ND's finger was not powerful enough to control the device for more than 10 minutes,
which means going out alone is not possible for him.
But after applying for our service, he trained himself to "walk" longer.
Even after our service, we were told that he kept trying to leave home and meet other friends.

Another servee has tried other entertainment such as snorkeling and paragliding after our service.
He's having a more plentiful life than before, and even than me.

[[slide page 12]]
In these cases, we can see that:
First, physical orgasm is not the only purpose of a sexual service.
Secondly, libido, or desire for sexual activity, is a strong energy for people to live.

There's a continuing question for us: People can still live without sex.
[[slide page 13]]
What's so important for disabled people to have sex?
Well, I think sex is probably not important for those who can have sex easily, but the impossibility to sex or intimacy may deny the self-esteem of a person.
Sex is an important reason for most people to make friends. So on the other hand, once a person is forced to abandon the opportunity to have sex, she (or he) might lose the energy to social activities. And that's not good for mental health.

[[slide page 14]] The 3 aspects we care about
First, physical orgasm. This is not only about sex organ, but also those come from your erogenous zone.
The problem is not only that people don't know how to interact with disabled people during sex,
but also that people do not want to know how the sex would be for people with different disabilities.

Second, intimacy. The right to have a satisfying date is also important.
Let's imagine, what if a couple of lovers want to kiss each other while seeing movie in a theater, but one of them is in wheelchair so their positions are actually separated?

Third, social integration. Many people with disabilities don't have enough opportunity to make close friends. One of the reasons is that other people usually don't know how to react with disabled people. Therefore, education is important.

[[slide page 15]] Gender Equity Education
In Taiwan, gender equity education comprises 3 parts: affective education, sex education, and gay and lesbian education.
Though I also want to introduce the situation that the conservative group is raising a proposal of referendum to forbid gay and lesbian education, but that's not the issue here so I have to skip that. I hope people who are interested in Taiwan may notice that same-sex marriage is not the only issue about gender equity.

Uh, back to disability rights movement.
As an organization which cares both gender issue and disability issue, we note that even open-minded gender activists may ignore the existence of people with disabilities.
Gender equity education is never designed or applied in the point of view of the disabled.
For example, there are some materials for teaching safe sex, but people seldom think about how a blind person should know before she (or he) masturbate or have sex.

We have a servee who once masturbated in the bathroom of his home, but couldn't clean up since not knowing where his semen reached during ejaculation, and therefore shocked his sister who later used the bathroom.
And another friend bought an artificial vagina in a sex toy store. But he didn't even know he have to erect before insertion.

[[slide page 16]] female servee
People caring about gender equity keep question us: why is there only one female servee during these 5 years after our foundation?
Well, we think the answer is complicated. But the most important one is: how difficult for a female to "confess" she has sexual desire?
We all know about "slut shaming", and those terms to humiliate females by their sexuality -- such as "bitch" and "whore".
It's difficult even for able-bodied females to state their sex experience and preference.
Then it's even more difficult for disabled females to think what she herself wants.

But before sexual activity with other people, disabled females don't even know their body well.
The only female servee we have, told us she has never seen or touched her own vagina.
So we also hosted some conferences and speeches to discuss about such situation of disabled females.

[[slide page 17]] Androcentrism
This is an important issue for us. And I think it's important for those who care about sexual health of disabled people.
Though there are some textures talking about sexual desires of disabled females. To provide sexual service or even sex education to them is barely seen.
I have to admit that, even though there are more and more female members joining us, androcentrism is still not easy to get over.

[[slide page 18]] limitations
Hand Angel provides service to those with servere physical or visual disabilities.
So here comes a frequently asked question: what about others?
The main difficulty for us is that we don't know enough about the situation of other disabilities.
Of course we know that people with other disabilities also don't have enough sexual resources,
but we ourselves do not have enough resources to share, either.
That's why we also hope other people to compose other similar organization.

Meanwhile, there are some people we cannot help because of law.
Adolescents are the ones I myself care about most,
since male teenagers have overwhelming sexual desire, and that would be hell for those with upper limb disability.

However, there are always laws prohibiting youths to have sex in every country.
[[slide page 19]]
In Taiwan, it is legal to have sexual activity after 16. No matter it's intercourse or not.
But even for an organization providing free service like us, the member who communicate with sex volunteer and the servee would be punished as a broker if the servee is younger than 18.
Actually, we do have an applier who mailed us about his desire when he was 15. What we can do is tell him to wait 3 more years.

Unfortunately, being an adult does not mean your right to sex is permitted.
[[slide page 20]]
People with intellectual disability or mental disorder are also infantilized, treated as babies or angels, and considered asexual.
The dilemma is similar to what teenagers have. Their consents are not considered valid.
That is frustrating. The law to protect them from sexual violence also tortures them.

[[slide page 21]] Acrotomophilia and devotees
While talking about disabled people in love or having sex, this is also an issue we should mention.
Some people worry about that devotees are just trying to dominate or take control of the disabled people.
This is similar to MacKinnon's dominance theory and male supremacy.
Devotees are considered to have more power in the relationship, and thus disabled people have a lack of autonomy.

I think that's a stigma, too.
The dominance theory does not deny free love. It focuses on the power issue.
Thus, the problem lies still on the absence of resources disabled people deserve.
Slanders on devotees are based on the prejudice that disabled people are never sexy,
and that denies the possibility for disabled people to have plentiful sexual activity.
The whole society shall support disabled people to have their own autonomy in their relationship.

[[slide page 22]] Difficulties
Usually, people would understand sexual desire of disabled people.
But to support it publicly is another story, especially for the organizations relying on donations.
There are some social workers and parents telling us that they want to do something to help their cases and family,
but it is still an issue which could not be spoken.
It's never been easy for us to talk about sex on the table, but it should be done.
Even for those who don't agree with the idea of sexual service, I do hope you could at least support disabled people to talk about their sex and romance.

[[slide page 23]]
This ends my report. Thank you for listening.
I'm Kong, a sex volunteer of Hand Angel from Taiwan.