Scrutinizing
Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities
細讀「不變論」：性傾向研究及美國針對性少數族群的法律辯護 (摘要)
We review scientific research and legal authorities to argue that
the immutability of sexual orientation should
no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same
sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual
minorities). On the basis of scientific research as well as U.S. legal rulings regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual
(LGB) rights, we make three claims: First,
arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific,
given what we now know from longitudinal,
population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time. Second,
arguments based on the immutability of
sexual orientation are unnecessary, in light of U.S. legal decisions in which courts have used grounds other than immutability to protect the
rights of sexual minorities. Third, arguments
about the immutability of sexual orientation are unjust, because they imply that same-sex attractions are inferior to other-sex attractions, and
because they privilege sexual minorities who
experience their sexuality as fixed over those who experience their sexuality
as fluid. We conclude that the legal rights of
individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships should not be framed as if they depend on a certain pattern of
scientific findings regarding sexual orientation.
通過回顧科學研究及法律權威的相關文獻，我們認為不應該再援引「性傾向的不可變性」作為立論基礎，來為那些受同性吸引并且有同性親密關係的人（即性少數族群）謀求權利。根據科學研究以及美國針對男女同性戀和雙性戀（LGB）權利的相關法律裁決，我們提出以下三個主張：第一，透過以族群為基礎的追蹤研究，我們目前知道有一些個體所受的同性吸引確實會隨著時間的變遷而自然地發生變化，因而所有基於「性傾向的不可變性」的論點都是不科學的。第二，美國法院過去所作的保護性少數族群權利的法律判決，往往是以「性傾向的不可變性」之外的其他理由作為依據，由此看來基於「性傾向的不可變性」的論點并非必不可少。第三，關於「性傾向不可變性」的爭論是不公正的，因為它們意味著同性吸引比其他類型的性吸引要低等一些，同時也暗示著在性少數族群成員中，性傾向固定的人優於性傾向流動的人。我們的結論是，不應該再理所當然地將某一種特定的性傾向科學研究發現的模式當作謀求性少數族群（受同性吸引且有同性親密關係的人）個人權利的立論基礎。
