立場新聞 Stand News

同性性傾向是否「天生」及「不可改變」?

2017/12/4 — 19:49

Lan Pham@flickr—Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Lan [email protected]—Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)

【文:不妙花生】

每年同志遊行,總有反同團體設街站派發單張,宣揚 / 暗示各種似是而非的訊息。

今年單張分四部份,第二部份講「逆向歧視」,第三部份講同性戀者反同意見,而第四部份則交代本港愛滋病數字。「逆向歧視」何解不成立?簡單用性別歧視作例子,「依法懲治歧視女性之人士」此行為,又怎能算是歧視,列舉個案之回應則可參看前文 <<回應香港性文化學會:同性婚姻對社會的深遠影響>>。而同性戀者反同,純屬表達個人意見,於說理並無大用。愛滋病數字,其實變相和應遊行關注議題:「消除歧視,終結愛滋」,只有改善性小眾人權狀況,修定反歧視法,才能有效對抗愛滋病。簡而言之,此三部份均無需理會。

廣告

真正值得關注的是第一部份,大字標明「美國心理學會(APA)高級研究員、女同性戀者LISA DIAMOND指出:現時大量研究已經指向一個結論:同性戀不是天生及不能改變。/ 2011年,美國心理學會(APA)已官方認可同性戀傾向可以改變」,而隨字更附送香港性文化學會連結一條 (而該頁又連結至另一篇文章,再轉接連結至真身:Laura Haynes所撰寫的<<The American Psychological association says born-that-way- and cant-change is not true of sexual orientation and gender identity>>一文)。本花生既對性別議題略有認知,一見如此宣稱當然會心微笑。但仔細思量後,理解部份讀者或會不加考證就全盤接受,所以決定撰文,用同一堆sources (包括APA Handbook,Sexual Fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire一書,文獻及錄影片段),講解相關內容及檢視Laura Haynes的理解是否正確。

「天生還是後天」?這問題本身就是陷阱

廣告

讓我們從較易處理的入手。在同志社群中,我們不時會聽到「Born this way」這套論述,當中直接說明的,當然是「天生」這點。而與之相反,則是今日Laura Haynes 綜合Lisa Diamond和APA Handbook觀點後作出的「不是天生」結論。這矛盾的兩方,理應有一方為偽,而事實亦然,但錯的是後而非前者。且慢,你這不是說Lisa Diamond這位專家錯了嗎?也不。真相是,錯的是Laura Hanyes,她存心誤導了讀者。

翻開 Diamond 有份編寫的APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology(Chapter 20由Diamond 所撰寫,其研究則被各Chapters引用),我們不難看到Chapter 18回顧了性傾向生理起源 (P.563-P.579)及環境起源的文獻 (P.579-582),P.583直接指出“ Despite any exploration that occurs, there is a strong biological foundation for sexual orientation” 。而這點呼應了近二十年的科學認知:生理及環境因素對性傾向形成均有影響,亦正如Diamond在書中所說

(P.11) Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is due to “nurture” instead of “nature”? 

No. In fact, sexual fluidity sheds no light on this question, since it deals with the expression of same-sex and othersex attractions rather than with their causes. Questions of causation typically receive the most debate and attention, but questions about expression are equally important. Nonetheless, fluidity raises important questions about how we think about biological versus cultural influences on sexuality, and it highlights the need for more integrative models.

簡而言之,Diamond根本就沒有說過性傾向「不是天生」,實際上她說過的是她不認同性傾向 “strictly biological”,亦即除生理因素外還在其他環境因素。而Diamond作為發展心理學家,她認為同性戀(same sex sexuality) “develop as the result of dynamic interchanges among innate, environmental, and cultural (factors)” (P.250),例如她在書中解釋Sexuality中的慾望分為較受生理因素影響的proceptivity 及環境因素影響的arousability兩部份是怎樣的dynamic interchanges:

(P. 211) Whereas consistent desires to seek out and initiate same-sex activity probably stem, at least in part, from an alteration in the intrinsic gender coding of proceptive desires, same sex arousability needs no such programming, and depends instead on environmental and situational factors…This is exactly what researchers investigating the potential biological underpinnings of same-sex sexuality have increasingly concluded: both biological and environmental factors operate together to shape same-sex sexuality.

「會改變」和「不會改變」,改變了的又是甚麼?

本花生以爺爺的兩粒花生起誓這不是文字遊戲或語言偽術。APA (2009)是這樣說的:“sexual orientation identity - not sexual orientation - appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events”。在變的只是性傾向認同,Laura Haynes (P.632)錯引的political lesbians就是一個例子。而在Sexual Fluidity一書中,Diamond則解釋“Sexual Fluidity”一詞:

(P.84) In addition to their sexual orientation, women also possess a capacity for fluidity. Think of this as a sensitivity to situations and relationships that might facilitate erotic feelings…The sexual attractions triggered by fluidity may be temporary or long-lasting, depending on how consistently a woman encounters the facilitating factors.

並為可能做成的誤會作出清晰解釋:

(P.10-11) Does fluidity mean that there is no such thing as sexual orientation?

No. Fluidity can be thought of as an additional component of a woman’s sexuality that operates in concert with sexual orientation to influence how her attractions, fantasies, behaviors, and affections

are experienced and expressed over the life course. Fluidity implies not that women’s desires are endlessly variable but that some women are capable of a wider variety of erotic feelings and

experiences than would be predicted on the basis of their self-described sexual orientation alone.

Does sexual fluidity mean that sexual orientation can be changed?

No. It simply means that a woman’s sexual orientation is not the only factor determining her attractions. A predominantly heterosexual woman might, at some point in time, become attracted to a woman, just as a predominantly lesbian woman might at some point become attracted to a man. Despite these experiences, the women’s overall orientation remains the same.

亦即是說,無論是APA還是Lisa Diamond,均不認同性性傾向是可以改變的。雖然今日Sexual Fluidity不時被譯為「性向流動」,但實際流動的並不是性向,而是當刻的(P.636-637)性向認同,性吸引(sexual attraction,這裡指某種事物對自己的吸引力,而非自身魅力)以及呈現(Manifestation)如行為、情感和情慾,又或作為相關概念整體的Sexuality。也所以,(P.12)「一位女性可以是同性戀傾向,但從來沒有同性關係;又正如她可以是異性戀傾向,而發展多段同性關係」。

她指出部份研究(包括自身研究)說明隨時間推移,不少人在性吸引、幻想、行為及性向認同方面的金賽量表評分(Kinsey’s rating) 均有轉變 (P.637-638)。她的研究則發現女性轉變至不完全性向認同如雙性和無標籤(unlabeled)較轉變至完全性向認同如異性和同性為多。女性的性別傾向認同得而擴展,同性戀認同女性由完全同性戀(exclusive same-sex sexuality)移走,而異性戀認同女性則移向不完全同性戀方向,雙性戀認同女性則在兩邊遊走但傾向保留在不完全性戀的範圍內。

而她亦提及部份研究所發現的性別差異:男性在起始時較完全同性戀的比例較高,而整體上隨時間推移傾向移至完全性戀;女性在起始時不完全同性戀的比例較高,而整體上隨時間推移傾向移至不完全性戀。

那或者有人會問,性傾向還有甚麼意義?對,它只是整個sexuality 的一部份,我們往往認同它的影響,但仍不太清楚究竟它的影響機制和影響程度有多大。而Diamond嘗試這樣理解(P.161):性傾向為潛在的性吸引定下範圍,而流動程度則決定個人實際在範圍內的那個位置。這樣的推論可以解釋到 1)為何部份女性的Sexuality較為穩定,而另一些則不然,2)為何性關係等表現與性傾向會出現不一致的情況。

「改變、選擇與操控」,那些容易令人混淆的概念

在書中,她表示自己的研究已被某些團體誤用,所以寫了以下一段話解釋她的理念:

(P.139) Many people inappropriately equate change with choice when thinking about sexual orientation. In other words, they assume that if sexual orientation is an inborn trait, it must be rigidly fixed and impervious to conscious control. Conversely, if sexual attractions show any variability at all, then orientation must be not an inborn trait but a consciously chosen lifestyle.

These assumptions are illogical, unscientific, and just plain wrong. Change, choice, and control are three totally separate phenomena. Individuals undergo plenty of drastic psychological changes that they did not choose and over which they have little control. Consider puberty: Who would choose the perplexing, confusing, sometimes overwhelming changes in sexual feelings that come with that stage of development? Can they be stopped? What about the notable decline in sexual attraction that often happens in a failing marriage? Most individuals feel powerless to rekindle their former passions (or to extinguish attractions for a new and more desirable partner). And what about the well-documented declines in sex drive that often accompany late life; are those chosen?

重點是,會改變(change)並不等同是一種選擇(choice),及自身能掌控(control),她舉例青春期的轉變不是一種選擇或能作出任何操控,又例如踏入老年性慾減弱亦很難說是一種選擇。而在P.249她則交代更多例子,例如被Laura Haynes錯誤引用的「與好友做房友」:

One decision—for example, becoming roommates with your best friend during a particular time

of your life—might shift your life path in directions that could lead to the emergence of novel, unexpected desires. Yet this does not mean that such an outcome was strategic, conscious, or

“undoable.”

我們能作的「選擇」實際上只是「與某人做房友」,但因此事可能激發的性慾則並不是一種選擇,它是難以預測的。她亦同時點明Sexual Fluidity並不代表「性傾向是一種選擇」,因為改變難以預計及掌控如阻止(P.11) :

Does fluidity mean that sexual orientation is a matter of choice?

No. Even when women undergo significant shifts in their patterns of erotic response, they typically report that such changes are unexpected and beyond their control. In some cases they actively resist

these changes, to no avail. This finding is consistent with the extensive evidence (reviewed in Chapter 8) showing that efforts to change sexual orientation through “reparative therapy” simply do not work.31

綜合上述內容,我們才能真正明白她在錄影片段中說: “I feel as a community, the queers have to stop saying, ‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing. I don’t think we need that argument, and that argument is going to bite us in the ass, because now we know that there’s enough data out there, that the other side is aware of as much as we are aware of it.”

的而且確,有一點東西(不是性傾向)是在改變,但即使那點東西也是「會改變」,亦很難說是「可以改變」。兩者有很大的能動性(agency)分別,但在中文裡我們卻經常沒分清楚。那為甚麼不需要這種論據呢?因為她明白 “fixed = biological = deserving of acceptance and protection, whereas variable = chosen = fair game for stigma and discrimination”(P.246)是科學上不正確且容易被某些人士利用,而同時認同Chapter 19中作者從尊重差異層面出發,退一百步的立場(P.619-620):

Whether an individual’s sexual orientation is or is not influenced by biological processes, is stable or fluid, or is adolescent or adult in expression, variability in sexual orientation should be respected as a natural form of diversity.

關於拗直治療的二三事

 承上段,Diamond亦對各種意圖改變性向的療法作出批評。P.618指出「性吸引隨時間的自然變化,並不代表性傾向能被個人或某種療法刻意所改變」。P.252則說該等療法並不能消除性吸引,但能教授技巧和策略使自身不受性吸引干擾。而這種「片面的」成功竟被Laura Haynes擺上枱,而故意忽略了「成功」這個字的引號及其後之文字補充:「我們要對這種拗直療法的成功故事抱有懷疑,因為它們一般而言並不能說明在底層的性向已被改變」。

她亦提及Spitzer對拗直治療有效性的研究雖然曾引起部份爭議(Spitzer 於2012年表示欲撒回研究,並承認對其論文的批評大部份均為正確) ,但各大主流專業機構則一致認為性傾向不可能改變且療法有機會做成傷害。而因應在九十年代尾再次崛起且有所發展的拗直治療,APA Task Force在2009年撰寫了Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation這份詳盡的報告,從學術文獻中檢視各種SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Effects)的成效,並再次得到上述提及的結論。

感言

誤導的文章,一篇也嫌多。加上「看起來」有APA,著名學者及某不學無術的PhD加持,似乎內容可信,但結果只是另一篇垃圾。今日某些組織、學會不加考證就引用/轉載這些文章,究竟居心何在,真的不得而知。各位讀者若對此等較有爭議性話題有興趣,請聽本花生一言。在這後真相年代,我們當然需要正氣,能夠將學術論據交代得清晰易明的學者(PS 不是本花生),但更需要的是高質素,不因立場判定真偽的讀者。而這一切,由懷疑開始,合理地質疑你的立場,你所看過的所有東西(包括這篇文章),並尋求在該方面真正權威的意見。只有尋根究柢,才能更接近真相。

再次感謝收看本花生文章,並就上文用詞的不精準致歉

 

附注

寫開又寫的補充,在性方面Lisa Diamond更想講的是:

由自身和其他研究出發,Diamond推論(P.644)女性的性傾向可能由兩個互不影響的維度所構成,一個維度是女性慾望的性別化程度(degree of “genderedness”),亦即慾望在何種程度上受(對方)性別影響,另一個維度才是由完全異性戀到完全同性戀兩端構成的光譜(continuum)。所以我們要先問的問題應是:「伴侶的性別重要嗎(有多重要)?」然後才是「如重要,較喜歡那種性別?」

另一方面,她亦補充與傳統認知相反,近代的研究數據均顯示完全同性戀(exclusively homosexuality)並非典型,不同程度的「雙性戀」(不完全性戀:non-exclusive patterns)才是。若我們將完全異性戀(exclusively heterosexuality)排除,並將其餘結果分為Mostly other-sex, Both-sex, Mostly same-sex, Only same sex (exclusively homosexuality)四個類別,則Mostly other-sex不論男女均會佔極大部份,而女性所佔比率又較同一項目男性所佔比率為高。相對而言,男性完全同性戀所佔比率則較女性為高。(P.633及錄影片段) 而這點為相關研究重新定立了方向,這群在過往被忽略,且難以被正確標籤的人(1. 他們較符合金賽量表中1的類別,但大部份自我認同為異性戀而非雙性戀,2. 雙性戀一詞亦容易被錯誤地理解為「對男女有同等喜好」,3.部份學者認為此情況實為壓抑真實完全性向的表徵或轉變階段),理應受到更多關注。

 

參考內容:

APA Task Force (2009). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Repsonses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC.: APA. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

Cornell University (Producer) (2013 December, 6) Lisa Diamond on sexual fluidity of men and women [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2rTHDOuUBw&feature=youtu.be&t=43m13s

Diamond, L. (2008). Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge: Harvard Press.

Diamond, L. (2014) Chapter 20: Gender and same-sex sexuality. APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person-Based Approaches. (pp. 629-652) Washington, DC.: APA.

Haynes, L. A. (2016) American Psychological Association Makes New Statement About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Is Silent About Important Research. Pdf Retrieved from http://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correction-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/
Hodges, M. (2016) APA researcher explodes myth: Gays aren’t ‘born that way’ Retrieved from https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychology-researcher-lesbian-blows-the-doors-off-born-gay-theory

Jacobse, J. (2016) American Psychological Association Course Correction: Sexual Orientation and ‘Gender Identity’ Not Fixed After All. Retrieved from http://www.aoiusa.org/american-psychological-association-course-correction-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-not-fixed-after-all/

Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. (2014) Chapter 19: Development of sexual orientation and identity. APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person-Based Approaches. (pp. 597-628) Washington DC.: APA.

Rosario, M. & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2014) Chapter 18: Theories and etiologies of sexual orientation. APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person-Based Approaches. (pp. 555-596) Washington DC.: APA.

香港性文化學會 (2017) 美國心理學會高級研究員:同性戀不是與生俱來及不能改變. Retrieved from http://scs.org.hk/b5_article_detail.php?title_id=270

 

作者自我簡介:天地一花生,苦海中載浮載沉,望能以拙劣文筆,為世上諸般不平事發聲。

 

 

 

 

 

發表意見