我扮我裝，裝扮原本是自己在從事的行為，而且每天都在實行，有些人像呼吸一樣自在，有些人卻像缺氧一樣驚慌，究竟裝扮出了什麼事，會讓人感到自在或驚慌，本研究發現在社會中確實存在著關於裝扮的規範，甚至在自己誕生時的性別，就會影響著父母要如何裝扮自己，但人們為何要照規範裝扮自己，當裝扮不符合社會大眾印象的規範時，裝扮者似乎就成了大眾們眼中的異端，在這樣的情境下，不同裝扮的異端者要如何面對自己與他人的不同。 
當代台灣社會女性的裝扮方式正出現新的轉變，這些裝扮者讓人難以辨認出她們的性別，甚至會將她們錯認為男性，她們並非為了表演而這樣扮裝，這是她們的日常扮裝，本研究透過與她們的訪談，發現到社會的性別符碼正在被撼動著，這樣的裝扮對她們來說很舒適自然，雖然仍有人對此存疑或不友善，而她們生活中也因此有些不方便，但有越來越多人可以去接受這樣的裝扮甚至跟進，透過訪談的結果，進行二元變項分析，二元變項為他人目光與自我意識，還有去性別及多元性別來描繪出可能的四個未來情節「異性模仿」、「我型我塑」、「裝有裝規」、「褲裙合一」，透過這樣的裝扮未來情節分析，探索之後的裝扮與多元社會間的型態關係。

How a person dress herself is rather a personal behavior and done in every day. Some feel as natural as breath while others are so panicky, What happened to our dressing up that renders people with different feelings. This paper finds that social norms governing people’s dressing codes. The parents, at the first sight of their baby, will be affected by the babys gender in the way they dress them up. But why should we dress ourselves according to the social norms? It seems that we may be weird in others’ eyes if we don’t dress up in line with the majorities’ norms. Under such circumstance, how can cross-dressers face their differences with others? 
Currently in Taiwan, new changes are found in females dressing patterns, namely, some of them like to dress themselves in a way that other people cannot identify their gender or even recognize them as males. They do it every day but not for performance. Through interviews with such people, this study finds the gender code is being challenged now and they feel comfortable and natural. Although there are still people doubting and showing hostility towards them, and they encounter inconvenience in the daily life, the number of people accepting such behavior and even following the trend is increasing. Based on the interviews and a double-driver praxis, the paper generate four future scenarios, “cross-dressing”, “shaping oneself freely”, “specific norms for specific dressing”, and “unity of trousers and dresses”, which are analyzed to explore the future dressing mode and the morphological relation in the pluralistic society.

目錄
圖目錄	ii
表目錄	iii
第一章  緒論	1
第一節  研究緣起	1
第二節  研究動機與目的	2
第二章  文獻回顧	5
第一節  性別刻板印象的產生	5
第二節  性別二分法的顛覆	9
第三節  扮裝的性別操演	14
第四節  性別場域	17
第三章  研究方法與設計	21
第一節  研究方法	21
第二節  研究設計	23
第四章  裝扮誰在看	28
第一節  不要裙子跟長頭髮	28
第二節  誰的場域？	37
第三節  社會的性別裝扮印象	53
第四節  裝扮的未來情節分析	59
第五章 決定裝扮的權力	63
第一節  裝扮的決定權	63
第二節  後續研究建議	64
參考文獻	66
圖目錄
圖3-2研究流程圖	27
表目錄
表3-2 受訪者基本資料	24
表4-4台灣社會裝扮的情境分析表	60

Baird, V. (2001). The No-Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity. London: Verso.
Bem, Sandra L. (1974). The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42：pp.155-162.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4-5)：pp.311-356.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D.（1992）。 An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press. Bowles, S.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter. London: Routledge.
Chris, B. (2000). Cultural Studies:Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Christian, H.(1994). The Making of Anti-Sexist Men. New York: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (2000). The Men and the Boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R.W.; Kessler, S.; Ashenden; Dowsett, G.W. (1985). Gender Relation in Secondary Schooling. Sociology of Education, 58(1):pp.34-48.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-Femininity: An Exception to A Famous Dictum?. Psychological Bulletin, 80:pp.389-407. 
Crane, D. (2000).  Fashion and its social agendas: class, gender, and identity in clothing. Chicago and London: The university of Chicago press.
Douglass, B. & Moustakaas, C. (1985). Heuristic Inquiry: the Internal Search to Know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25(3):pp.39-55. 
Foucault, M. (l978). The History of Sexuality. Vol. I: An Introduction. Trans. by Robert Hurley. New York: Random House. 
Garber, M. B. (1992). Vested interests: cross-dressing & cultural anxiety. New York: Routledge. 
Gilbert, H. ed. (1993). Third sex, third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. New York: Zone Books. pp.21-84.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995).Ethnography: Principles in Practice and Problems. Sociology, 31(1):pp131-132.
Heilbrun, A. B. (1976). Measurement of Masculine and Feminine Sex-Role Identitiesas Independent Dimensions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44:pp183-190.
Inayatullah, S. (2007). Questioning the future: Methods and tools for Organizational and Social Transformation. Taipei, Taiwan: Tamkang University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2:pp34-46.
Johnson, A. (1996). It’s good to talk :the focus group and the sociological imagination. Sociological Review, 44(3):pp.517-538.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Woman’s Time in T. Moi (ed.) The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, J. & Glassner, B. (1997). Qualitative Research: Theory, Methods and Practice. London: Sage.
Morgan, D. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury. Park: Sage.
Murray, D.A.B. (1998). Defiance or defilement? undressing cross-dress in martinque’s carnival. Sexuality, 1(3): pp.343-354.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rubin, G. (1975). The Traffic in woman: Note on the Political Economy of Sex. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Rupaul, D.(1995). Lettin It All Hang Out: An Autobiography. New York: Hyperion.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of Self and Peers on Sex-Role Attributes and Their Relations to Self-Esteem and Conceptions of Masculinity and Feminity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: pp.29-39.
Tuckman, B. & Jenson, M. (1977).Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group and Organisational Studies, 2(4): pp.419-427.
Webb, B. & Webb, S. (1932). Methods of Social Study. London: Longmans Green.
West& Zimmerman (2002). Doing Gender. In S. Jackson& S. Scott (Eds.), Gender: A sociological reader (pp. 42-47). London& New York: Routledge.
Williams, J. E. & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring Sex stereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study, Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillian Company.
Woodhouse, A. (1989). Fantastic Women: Sex, Gender and Transvestism. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.
Agacinski, S. 著，吳靜宜 譯，(2004)。性別政治。台北：桂冠。
Baudrillard, J. 著，洪凌 譯，(1981)。擬仿物與擬像。臺北市：時報。
Chris S. 著，林文琪 譯，(2006)。身體差異。認同與差異。台北：韋伯。頁64-209。
Ｈawkes, T. 著，瞿鐵鵬 譯，(1987)。結構主義和符號學。上海：譯文。
Luce I. 著，李金梅 譯，(2005)。此性非一。台北：桂冠。
Mead, M. 著，宋踐 譯，(1990)。三個原始部落的性別與氣質。台北：遠流。 
Neil J. C. G. 著，張淑紋 譯，(2003)。表演、Bakala與東方主義的凝視。跨性別。中壢：中央大學性／別研究室。 
Connell, R. W.著，劉泗翰 譯，（2004）。性∕別。臺北：書林。
Weedon, C. 著，白曉紅 譯，(1989)。女性主義實踐與後結構主義理論(Feminist Comprehensive Introduction)。台北：桂冠。
王志弘(2000)。性別化流動的政治與詩學。台北：田園。
李卓夫(2000)。大學生性別角色刻板印象與兩性平權態度關係之研究。嘉義大學家庭教育研究所碩士論文。
李美枝(1984)。社會心理學─理論研究與應用。台北：大洋。
李美枝(1987)。性別角色面面觀：男人與女人的權利暗盤。台北：聯經。
何春蕤(2002)。認同的「體現」：打造跨性別。台灣社會研究季刊，46：頁1-43。
何春蕤(2003)。性／別壓迫：跨性別主體在台灣。跨性別。中壢：中央大學性／別研究室。
林宇玲(2003)。解讀台灣綜藝節目『反串模仿秀』的性別文化：以《台灣紅不讓》的<變男變女變變變>單元為例。跨性別：頁173-217，中壢：中央大學性／別研究室。
周新富（2005）。布爾迪厄論學校教育與文化再製。台北市：心理。
高宣揚，1998。當代社會理論。台北：五南。
易慧慈(2000)。扮裝的媒體再現之分析。淡江大學大眾傳播學系傳播碩士班論文。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳國華(1999)。〈未來研究的預測與研究方法〉，頁119-157 ，收錄於林志鴻、董娟娟編，《社會未來學》。台北：華泰文化。
陳學明 (1995)。性革命，台北：揚智。
張春興 (2002)。現代心理學。台北：東華。
黃文三 (1990)。我國青少年性別刻板印象之比較研究。高師大教文粹，20：頁89-114。
賴文魁 著，(2006)。多元性別於服裝裝置創作。實踐大學時尚與媒體設計研究所碩士論文。
蔣基萍 著，(2005)。摩梭母系社會性別角色之論述。哲學與文化，32(3)：頁111-133。
蔡漢賢 主編，(2000)。社會工作辭典，台北：內政部社區發展雜誌社。