本文由同志/怪胎社群對於“囡"這個稱號的戲誰喜好開始，先分析樣討幾個代表性實例在運用這個稱號時所具有的特定意舍，以及其所反映血來的對於

“囡"在現代政治想像中的不同理解。這些實例依序包括:(1)從本土前同i這時期 白先勇先驅同性愁小說《卒于》中所謂“我們的王囡\"，到同運初起步時由台大男同性戀研究社集體撰寫的《同性戀邦耳肘，再到以詐佑生近作《同志共和國》為代表的并多其他例子;(2)在美國一九九0年代初盛接一時的基進運動固體吋妥胎國

(Queer Nation)" ;以及(3)風行於一九七0年代美國女同志女性主義陣摯的“女同志國(LesbianNation)"。根據本文的分析，這三個實例分別代表了: (1)一種修辭轉喻，用以對同性態/同志的認同/運動主體進行召喚;(2)堅持對周家的公共 場域進行介入，卻以一種怪胎敢曝的方式加以變異;以及(3)套用國旅自決的原則，以逼近分離主義的方式成立一個“屬於自己的國家"。立基於以上的分4斤，本文然後大膽提出“同志建囡\"做為同志運動:意在改變現狀的一個烏托邦想望的必要性，並將之“去戲誰化\"地認真考量其可行性，俾便在此世紀末與新千禧的當口，為同逕悶熱l一個丈具未來祝野的政略忠、維。同時在這整個思維過程中，也企圖以同志性異議的立場，為“囡\"與“國族主泉"提供邊緣的理解燭照與另類的改造介入。

This essay got its inspiration from the intriguing phenomenon that mem· bers of lesbian， gay， and queer communities show a certain liking for the name of "nation" to caIl themselves， obviously just for a joke in most of the cases because of the seeming impossibility of taking it too seriously. Yet the fol· lowing two questions at least should be asked about this phenomenon: (1)what kind of implicit assumptions that people harbor about "nation" can be glimp· sed in such an act of self· naming; and (2) what if this act of proclaiming one· self as a “nation"is taken seriously? To answer the first question， I select three cases of representative value for a close analysis: (1)several Taiwanese examples， ranging from calling the local homosexual/gay community as "our kingdom" (Pai Hsien.yung)，“confederation，\" to“republic"-aIl to the effect of interpellating a subject position for identity and even movement; (2) the radi· cal activist group Queer Nation， which insisted on intervening in the public sphere of the nation “witha camp inflection"; (3) the lesbian feminist project of a Lesbian Nation， whose political stance of separatism pushed the name to its most literal realization. Based on such an analysis， the essay at last puts forth the daring proposal that， for lesbian， gay， and queer communities， build· ing a “nation"of one's own in the principle of self· determination should be seriously pursued as a utopian vision， rather than carelessly dismissed as an insignificant jest. For it seems only a utopian vision is capable of saving such structurally subordinate groups from the despair of dire times and keep· ing up the fighting spirit. And， hopefully， the idea of“nation" could also be transfigured at the same time as queers also seek to build “theirown nation(s)."