性/別向來在法學領域中充滿道德、秩序與良俗的符號意義，司法亦多蕭規曹隨，未敢修復詮釋，秉持傳統法學倫理，一種性/別正義神主牌論述，但自1970年代美國法學界興起批判法學與女性主義法學的研究風潮，關注司法審理經驗以建構執法正義，同期間多元文化主義在性別議題上批判父權意識的法律體制，性/別正義的議題逐漸揭露辯證。 我國司法院大法官雖係依憲法第七十九條產生，無特別排除女性大法官的推薦與選任，但是以民國92年至今增補選任共有十五位大法官，其中女性大法官只有二位，因此大法官解釋文的決議機制便是在男權優勢下建構，本文以近年大法官解釋文中關於性別歧視受注目案例之554、617及666號解釋為研究個案，三者分別為性別自由與妨害家庭、妨害風化與社會秩序的裁判詮釋。 司法機關於94年始推動性別主流化，希冀重建性/別正義的司法秩序，立法雖然致力建構性別平權條文，但是執法者對於個案的裁判意識與再現是檢驗性/別正義的重要場域。因此本文透過司法院釋字第554、617及666號解釋文，以分析詮釋男性大法官的性/別正義觀。

In the legal field, gender/sexuality has always been full of symbolic significance of morality, order and good conventions. People in the judicial system are so accustomed to follow their predecessors that they have never dared to change the definition and interpretation of gender/sexuality. However, as Critical Legal Studies and feminist jurisprudence have become trendy in the legal world of the United States since 1970, people are paying more and more attention to the law enforcement and justice by building up experience in judicial proceedings. At the same period of time, multiculturalism has been getting more and more critical on the patriarchal legal system in terms of its gender/sexuality issues, thus gradually exposing the gender/sexuality issues for public debates. The honorable justices are appointed according to Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, without any prejudice to rule out the recommendation and selection of female grand justices. However, among the fifteen grand justices who have been added to the list since 2003, there are only two female honorable justices. As a result, all the interpretation of laws and orders has been made under a resolution mechanism dominated by the male judges. The author of this article has intentionally selected Interpretation Letters #554, #617, and #666 for this study, because they are concerned with sex discrimination and have drawn a lot of attention in the recent years. Each of the Interpretation Letters is concerned with gender/sexuality freedom and illegal interference with family relations, public morality, and social order, respectively. The judiciary institutions have begun to promote gender mainstreaming since 2005, in the hope to rebuild judicial order with gender/sexuality justice. A lot of legislative efforts have been put forward to build up the provisions for protecting gender equality, but law enforcement on the individual cases relating to the gender/sexuality justice is still an important testing ground to indentify the judges’ awareness of the subject matters. Therefore, the author decides to analyze the Judicial Yuan’s Interpretation Letters #554, #617, and #666 to find out what viewpoints the male honorable justices have on sexual justice.