本論文は、1990年代後半以降、バックラッシュ派と言われている反フェミニズム側の保守運動の政治的な力と言說によって、ジェンダ-論及びフェミニズムに對する歪曲.流言(フェミニズムの「害毒と惡玉視」)が擴大再生産されてきたことを明らかにし、その言說(1999～2006)の中でも性をめぐる主たる論点(主張)とその思想的特性について考察したものである。具體的には、性(性別.性の多樣性)をめぐる言說について、「男女二分法のイデオロギ」「同性愛者嫌惡」「女莊家(オカマの授業)」「自己弁護論」「破壞否定論」「男女平等との分離論」「女性蔑視.詭弁.ルサンチマン視」「陰謀論」というキ-ワ-ドでまとめた。とくに重要な論点であるのは、男女二分法と「男らしさ.女らしさ」に代表される「本質主義」「生理的宿命」論に基づく固定的な性別役割分業と性別特性論であり、「性の多樣性」を否定することで、性的マイノリティ、多樣な家族と生き方に對する差別がその根底に蠶んでいると分析した。バックラッシュ言說には、各人の人券意識やジェンダ-平等意識が欠如している主張が多かったにもかかわらず、こうした言說が一部で浸透してしまったのは何故か。ここでは、①とんでもない俗論であっても分かりやすい言葉で說明している点、②俗論であっても社會的通念に訴えかけたものである点(「秩序.規範」「壇統.文化」「家族.家庭」など)、③フェミニストは男女關係を敵對關係として捉えたと歪曲する論法、④「ジェンダ-フリ-は」「性差否定」であると決めつけた論法、⑤人クのエリ-ト.知識人への反發を利用して「フェミニズム＝ルサンチマン」視を廣げたこと、などを指摘した。

This paper sheds light on how from the 1990s onward the distortions of and rumors about gender studies and feminism (views about feminism being harmful and poisonous) produced by the discourse of the antifeminist conservative movement known as the backlash group expanded and reproduced. It studies the main points of discussion around the question of gender as well as its ideological characteristics in that discourse (1999-2006). Specifically, this discourse about gender (sex distinction and gender variance) was arranged around the following key words and phrases: the ideology of the male-female dichotomy; homophobia; cross-dressers (lessons from gay men); theories of self-justification; theories of denial and destruction; gender equality and segregation; misogyny, feminist sophisms, and feminist resentment; and conspiracy theories. What is especially important are the issues of the differentiation of roles and special characterization of gender based on theories of “essentialism” and the “biological mission” as represented in the male-female dichotomy and “manliness-womanliness.” Because these deny gender variance, analysis was performed to determine how discrimination toward sexual minorities and diverse families and lifestyles hides in it. Why is it that the discourse of backlash has partially penetrated even though the lack of awareness of individual human rights and gender equality has often been noted? That leads to identification of the next factors. First, although the discourse expresses gross and commonplace views, it explains them using easy-to-understand language. Second, it resorts to generally accepted ideas (“order and rule,” “tradition and culture,” “family and home,” etc.). Third, the distorted logic of saying that feminists think of the relationship between men and women as a hostile relationship. Fourth, the assertion that “gender free” means “denial of sexual differentiation”; and fifth, the spreading of the view that identifies feminism with resentment, making use of the reaction against elites and intellectuals.