本論文探討泰國社會趨勢與官僚體系在推進酷兒平權過程中的矛盾。儘管政治部門愈加積極回應，特別是在2024年通過《平等婚姻法》（Equal Marriage Act）後，官僚部門依然保守、僵化，且調整速度緩慢。研究的核心問題在於，形式上的法律改革與實際落實權利所需的官僚執行之間，存在明顯落差。
本研究採用質性研究方法，包括文件分析與半結構式訪談，分析制度如何回應社會與政治環境的演變。研究發現，官僚的調整大多是被動的，主要因應法律命令，而非出於對多元性的真誠承諾。這種「被迫的適應」往往僅帶來表面的改變，缺乏深層次的制度轉型。
透過歷史制度論，本研究揭示了從泰國全國維持和平秩序委員會: NCPO 時期延續下來的制度遺緒如何持續影響官僚文化。透過 Judith Butler 的性別展演理論，本研究亦說明了官僚實踐如何仍在強化二元性別規範，使酷兒個體必須順應體制才能獲得認同。
本研究針對三個層面提出改革建議：結構性改革、能力建構，以及規範轉變。若未能理解官僚體系的參與與回應，法律上的進展將僅止於象徵意義。要在泰國實現真正的酷兒平權，需從國家機構內部的文化與態度出發，進行根本轉變。

This dissertation examines the contradictions between Thailand’s social trends and bureaucratic sectors in advancing queer equality. While the political sector has become more responsive, particularly through the legalization of the Marriage Equality Act in 2024, the bureaucratic sector remains conservative, rigid, and slow to adjust. The key puzzle lies in the gap between formal legal reforms and the bureaucratic implementation necessary to ensure those rights are realized in practice. Using qualitative methods, including document analysis and semi-structured interviews, the study analyzes how institutions have responded to the evolving socio-political landscape. The findings show that bureaucratic adaptations are mostly reactive, driven by legal mandates rather than genuine institutional commitment to diversity. This “forced adaptation” often results in superficial transformations without deeper structural transformations.
Through Historical Institutionalism, the study reveals how legacies from the NCPO era continue to shape bureaucratic culture. Butler’s Gender Performativity Theory helps explain how bureaucratic practices still reinforce binary gender norms, requiring queer individuals to conform to gain recognition. This study offers recommendations in three domains: structural reform, capacity-building, and normative change. Without understanding bureaucratic engagement, legal progress will remain symbolic. Achieving queer equality in Thailand requires transforming from the culture and attitudes within the state apparatus.

English Sources
Aksorngarn, K. (2024). Legalization of same-sex marriage in Thailand: Society steps forward, but policymakers still hesitate. Beijing Law Review, 15(1), 91–101.
Al Jazeera. (2024). Thai parliament passes same-sex marriage bill. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/27/thai-parliament-passes-same-sex-marriage- bill
Anek, L. (1992). Explaining Thailand: Buddhist democracy or bureaucratic polity? In R. H. Taylor (Ed.), The politics of transition in Southeast Asia (pp. 198–224). Cambridge University Press.
Boudreau, V. (1996). Northern theory, southern protest: Opportunity structure analysis in cross- national perspective. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 1(2), 175–189.
Browne, K., & Nash, C. J. (2010). Queer methods and methodologies: Intersecting queer theories and social science research. Taylor & Francis.
Connors, M. K. (2008). Article of faith: The failure of royal liberalism in Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330701651950
Dressel, B., & Tonsakulrungruang, K. (2019). Coloured judgements? The work of the Thai constitutional court, 1998–2016. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(1), 1-23.
Esaiasson, P. (2010). Electoral Democracy and Political Accountability. The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior.
Farrelly, N. (2013). Why democracy struggles: Thailand’s elite coup culture. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(3), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2013.788121
Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013). LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice. Springer.
Halperin, D. M. (2014). The normalization of queer theory. In Queer Theory and communication (pp. 339-343). Routledge.
Hattam, V. C. (1992). Institutions and political change: working-class formation in England and the United States, 1820-1896. Politics & Society, 20(2), 133-166.
Hewison, K. (2020). Thailand: The failure of reform. In M. Mietzner (Ed.), Democratic regression in Asia (pp. 107–124). Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2019). Thailand: Military rule undermines rights reforms. https://www.hrw.org.
Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
Jackson, P. A. (2002). Offending images: Gender and sexual minorities, and state control of the media in Thailand. Media fortunes, changing times: ASEAN states in transition, 201-230.
Jackson, P. A. (2003). Performative genders, perverse desires: A bio-historical ontology of same- sex desire in Thailand. Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, (9).
Jackson, P. A. (2011). Queer Bangkok: 21st century markets, media, and rights (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.
Kosashunhanan, K., Rungswang, A., Iamlaor, A., Sittironnarit, S., Teptong, N., & Soisuwan, T. (2022). LGBTQ should not be a Lecturer?: Thai Undergraduate Students’ Attitudinal Assessment Towards LGBTQ Lecturer in EFL Classroom. Journal of Roi Kaensarn Academi, 7(8), 371-387.
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., & Kull, R. M. (2015). Reflecting on school-based interventions: The effectiveness of safe and supportive learning environments for LGBTQ+ students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(3), 276-296.
Kusakabe, K. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in government offices in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos: Perspectives from below. Gender & Development, 13(2), 46-56.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2009). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.
Maiphromma, S. (2007). Seksuality nai sangkhom thai lae ruang kong phuenthi lae itthiphon [Sexuality in Thai society and the matters of space and power]. Bangkok: Gender Press.
Martin, F. (2003). Situating sexualities: Queer representation in Taiwanese fiction, film and public culture (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.
Matthews, T. (2022). The Politics of Protest and Gender: Women Riding the Wings of Resistance. Social Sciences, 11(2), 52.
McCargo, D. & Ukrist, P. (2005). The Thaksinization of Thailand. NIAS Press.
McCargo, D. (2005). Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand. The Pacific Review. 18(4), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500338937
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. Routledge.
Neary, A. (2021). LGBTQ+ perspectives in education: Learning from Ireland. Palgrave Macmillan.
Peng, Y. W. (2015). Gendering policy analysis? The problems and pitfalls of participatory ‘gender impact assessment’. Policy Analysis in Taiwan, 81-94.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2004). Thaksin: The business of politics in Thailand. Silkworm Books.
Pongtriang, P. (2010). Perception of sexuality and HIV infection: A Qualitative Study among Bangkok Chaay Rak Chaay (Gay men). Nursing Journal of the Ministry of Public Health.
Pressman, J. L., Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How Great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work at all. California: University of California Press.
Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C., & Manin, B. (1999). Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge University Press.
Puar, J. K. (2013). Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 45(2), 336–339.
Pulwamara, M., & Corngreat, S. (2019). Identity of "Tut" (Ladyboy) from Banthuek Khoeng Tut and Kwa Che Cha Pen Moe.
Reid, L., Newman, P. A., Lau, H., Tepjan, S., & Akkakanjanasupar, P. (2022). A Scoping Review of LGBT+ Inclusion in Thailand: Policy Proposals and Recommendations. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(4), 1731-1746.
Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T'Sjoen, G. (2016). Genderqueer and non-binary genders. Springer.
Riggs, F. W. (1966). Thailand: The modernization of a bureaucratic polity. East-West Center Press.
Rucht, D. (2004). The Quadruple ‘A’: Media strategies of protest movements since the 1960s. In W. van de Donk et al. (Eds.), Cyberprotest: New media, citizens and social movements (pp. 29–56). Routledge.
Ruvalcaba, H. D. (2016). Translating the queer: Body politics and transnational conversations. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205-213.
Sanders, D. (2020). Sex and gender diversity in Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights. 4(2). 5 - 22.
Sanders, D. (2020). LGBT Equality and Thai Marriage. In: Goh, J.N., Bong, S.A., Kananatu, T. (eds) Gender and Sexuality Justice in Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8916-4_14
Sinthuphan, J., & Ruendhawil, T. (2022). A Battle for Equal Marriage Rights in Thailand. Protection of Minority Rightsin Asia: Country Cases.
Sawatree Suksri. (2021). Enforcement Studies Gender Equality Act 2015 to evaluate the achievement of laws. Bangkok: King Prajadhipok's Institute.
Schulman, S. (2011). Israel and “Pinkwashing”. The New York Times.
Short, D. (2013). Teaching about LGBT families in elementary school: The challenges and the rewards. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2), 83-101.
Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2020) . Authoritarian innovations and democratic resilience in Thailand. Democratization. 27(6), 945–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1734161
Songsamphan, C. (2012). Private Family, Public Contestation: Debates on Sexuality and Marriage in the Thai Parliament. Silkworm Books.
Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
UNDP, Thailand (2019). New Study Reveals Favourable Attitudes Towards LGBT People in Thailand, But Also Persistent Stigma, Discrimination, Violence and Exclusion. https://www.undp.org/thailand/press-releases/new-study-reveals-favourable-attitudes- towards- lgbt-people-thailand-also-persistent-stigma-discrimination-violence-and
UNDP, USAID (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: Thailand Country Report. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54ed82784.pdf
Waites, M. (2019). Queer Asia: Decolonising and reimagining sexuality and gender. Bloomsbury Publishing
Wangkiat, P. (2019). Gender equity push must start in the House. Retrieved 29th April 2024 via https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/1688320/gender-equity-push-must-start- in-the house
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. Columbia University Press.

Thai Sources
Ajchutamanus, W. (2022). LGBTQ+: "สมรสเท่าเทียม" เป้าหมายที่ยังไปไม่ถึงของการใช้ชีวิตคู่ในไทย. https://www.bbc.com/thai/60426119
Bangkok Thailand Institute of Justice. (2019). กฎหมายกับบทบาทเพื่อสิทธิเท่าเทียมของผู้มีความหลากหลายทางเพศ. https://www.tijthailand.org/th/highlight/detail/lgbtq-reg-thailand-dev.
BBC NEWS. (2020). แฟลชม็อบนักศึกษา ถึง ชุมนุมใหญ่ของ "คณะราษฎร 2563" ลำดับเหตุการณ์ชุมนุมทางการเมืองปี 2563 https://www.bbc.com/thai/thailand-54741254
Bonners, J. (2022). การเดินขบวนเพื่อสตรีในไทย เรื่องสิทธิลาคลอด เป็นการประท้วงเดียวที่รัฐบาลรับฟัง. Mirror Thailand. https://mirrorthailand.com
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. (2014). The role of the bureaucracy and the decentralization process after the 1997 Constitution. Bangkok: Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Galya Sa-ang. (2020). Gender equality and citizenship rights in Thai bureaucracy. Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. [In Thai]
iLaw. (2015). พ.ร.บ.ความเท่าเทียมฉบับ “ลักทั้งตื่น” . https://www.ilaw.or.th/articles/1621
Khaopuek, K. (2022). ‘รักแห่งสยาม’ สู่ ‘กระแสวายฟีเวอร์’ ย้อนส˚ารวจเส้นทางความรักของ LGBTQ+ บนโลกภาพยนตร์และ ละครไทย. https://thestandard.co/love-of-siam-to-trending-y-series/
Kongkeerati, P. (2023). สิ้นสุด 2 ขั้ว 2 พรรค สู่ยุคใหม่ของระบบการเมืองไทย “หลายพรรคและแตกต่าง”. https://decode.plus/20230513-multi-party/
Kongsuwan S., Putthasri S. (2020). ‘family we choose’: ครอบครัวในสายตา ‘เรา’ และสายตา ‘รัฐ’ กับชลิดาภรณ์ ส่ง สัมพันธ์. https://kidforkids.org/chalidaporn-songsamphan-interview/
Maneekarn, T., & Pannarai, P. (2023). Bureaucratic reform under the military regime: Internal adjustment without structural transformation. Journal of Public Administration, 21(2).
Office of the National Strategy. (2018). Thailand's 20-year national strategy (2018–2037). Bangkok: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. https://nscr.nesdc.go.th/
Poedloknimit, C., Suklueang, K., & Dockthaisong, B. (2022). โมเดลความสัมพันธ์เชิงสาเหตุการขับเคลื่อนนโยบายด้านความเท่าเทียมทางเพศของกระทรวงการพัฒนาสังคมและความมั่นคงของมนุษย์. Journal of MCU Social Science Review, 11(4).
Romjampa, T. (2003). Jak Krateoy Soo Gay: the history of homosexual in Thailand. Journal of Letters,Vol. 32(1).
Satjasai, A. (No Date). ความหลากหลายทางเพศตอนที่ ๑ เพศสภาพและ LGBTQI คืออะไร. https://www.parliament.go.th/ewtadmin/ewt/elaw_parcy/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=2649.
Tawat Punnotok, (1999). The development of Thai textbooks, Ramkhamhaeng University Press: Bangkok
Thansettakij. (2023). กางนโยบายพรรคการเมือง ความเท่าเทียมทางเพศ LGBTQ. https://www.thansettakij.com/thailand-elections/election-analysis/562937
The nation. (2024). Where different parties stand in Thailand’s political compass. https://www.nationthailand.com/gallery/infographic/40027088
Worapitaksanond, T. (2023). การต่อรองและการสยบยอมต่อความไม่เท่าเทียมทางเพศในด้านชีวิตคู่ ของกลุ่มคู่รักเพศเดียวกัน. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research and Development (JMARD), 5(3), 1-27.
Office of the Royal Society. (2020). History of Office of the Royal Society. https://www.orst.go.th/iwfm_list.asp?p=ABOUT-HISTORY-ORS