According to DL Foster, this statement –
From what I know I believe there’s 80% of women, between 80 and 85% of women that are struggling with homosexuality were either raped by someone they knew or somebody outside of that but normally there’s some type of rape or some kind of molestation in our past.
is equivalent to this statement –
Since rape or sexual assault is perhaps the most common form of attack against lesbians (as it is against all women), it follows that many purely practical issues would arise for lesbians who victims of rape or sexual assault.
The first is from ex-gay activist Janet Boynes; the latter from lesbian activist Abby Tallmer. Foster is having a dig at our own Daniel Gonzales, who charged Boynes with making up statistics. Foster claims they are both saying the same thing (and therefore nah-nah-nah-nah-nah to Gonzales, because even his fellow gay activists agree with Boynes).
That they are saying the same thing is a bizarre claim. Boynes very clearly says that 80-85 percent of “struggling” lesbians have been sexually assaulted. Tallmer says only that sexual assault is the most common form of attack against both lesbians and women in general. I’d explain what that means, but it speaks for itself. “Most common” means only that it happens more often than any other type of crime. The actual figure could be anything from a few percent. We’re talking about a very basic mathematical concept here.
I challenged Foster on this strange logic, and his response was revealing:
Again, absent hard data from either side of the debate, I choose to believe the “most common” represents a far higher number than a lower one. Of course, you may not want to acknowledge that so you choose to believe it more than likely represents a lower figure than 80-85%.
He first concedes there is no hard evidence, and then flat-out admits he “chose to believe” that “most common” means 80-85 percent. This is a far cry from the claim that Tallmer’s article “agrees with Janet”.
Why bother with logical analysis when you can just choose to believe?
“Truthiness” (I love that word) is the name of the game for these people. If it sounds good in their mouths, if they think they can put one over on their unsophisticated readers and listeners, then they’ll do it. Because the truth isn’t on their side.
That is such a basic logical fault I have trouble believing anyone could honestly make it.
The most common form of attacks (on lesbians) is rape =/= most lesbians have been raped.
Compare: The most common type of aneamia is microcytic aneamea =/= most people have microcytic aneamia.
It’s clearly wrong.
Some lesbians get attacked/raped, and this is terrible. The terribleness is not a good reason to make up statistics about the frequency of it happening. It’s a very bad reason. *shakes head*
Yeah, I gave up on that thread after a couple of tries. It’s an example of how bizarre his thinking is. I tried to find what I thought was common ground (it seemed he was implicitly questioning the credibility of Tallmer, who isn’t a sociologist), but wound up getting attacked about that, too.
The guy needs a few logic courses. At minimum. Some concepts like ad homiminem, begging the question, ad hoc, etc. might be helpful for him.
If you haven’t noticed, DL’s a five year old who gets his jollies by taunting people. Any attention he can garner for himself gratifies his ego, whether it’s positive or negative. The is absolutely zero point in engaging him on anything, because all he’s really interested in is the attention.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there are many people who simply do not want to see the truth. It can be too discomforting. They might have to accept something they don’t like. Reality has a way of tearing down the safeguards that are built up to support various kinds of self-deception and emotionally charged armor that people use to protect themselves from issues that they just don’t want to accept. It’s easy to hide behind a belief system that validates exactly what you want to believe, especially if that means avoiding internal issues that one doesn’t want to face or the possibility of shattering a world view held onto for emotional reasons. The same type of rejection of logic shows up in other areas, from the rejection of science (conveniently only where it is challenging a cherished belief) and easy acceptance of ideas like Intelligent Design and the acceptance of other questionable positions and studies as valid from a scientific perspective.
Like so many people DL makes up reality as he finds a use for it. Him and Stephen Bennet should come to Canada and get married, they’re perfect for each other.
I’m with Boo.
There is very little point in debating DL Foster. DL has no interest in fact or logic, finding common ground, or even in “helping people leave the homosexual lifestyle”.
DL views himself as a cultural warrior for God and total anihilation of his enemy is his goal. We are his enemy. Hate, lies, distrortion, vitriol, and ignorance are his weapons.
Willie you’re right its such a basic logical fault on DL’s part there’s no way it can be honest. Once again, its apparent to me that the anti-gays know they’re lying and they somehow think they can still be moral people despite it.
Call me a bleeding heart! I actually feel sorry for him. I hope he hits bottom, experiences a total meltdown where he accepts his homosexuality, finds true love, not necessarily with Bennet, gets married to the man of his dreams in Canada, and lives happily ever after as a nice person who no longer lashes out like a wounded animal.
I’m such a dreamer!
I really wish that critical thinking courses were part of high school curriculum in this country. Folks shouldn’t have to wait for college to learn how to approach things like this (especially when those who need it most might not ever go to college).
I really am of the opinion that DL Foster does not have a clue and cannot actually follow these arguments because he has not learned how to think critically. He could prove me wrong of course, but I haven’t seen him manage it yet. After growing up in a very fundamentalist, closed-off family, I would have made the same leaps and false arguments as he often does.
It wasn’t until I got in a critical thinking course in college that I began to learn how to see these things clearly and spot fallacies and general…craziness. That’s the technical term. 😉 The good news for DL though is that most colleges offer such a course and he could easily remedy this situation.
“I really wish that critical thinking courses were part of high school curriculum in this country. Folks shouldn’t have to wait for college to learn how to approach things like this (especially when those who need it most might not ever go to college).”
You’re absolutely right Christine. High school courses like that and in conflict resolution, anger managment, and morality (golden rule) are sorely missing in a world troubled with people like DL.
I don’t believe anyone is beyond being reached with logic and fairness, just people like DL will rarely give you the chance to serve the truth up to them on a cold platter. That’s why sometimes I push his mistakes and contradictions back in his face, I’m not willing to let him have an easy go of feeling good about trying to take away the freedom to be gay. No way do I want to sit back and let someone like him comfortably have his fallacious irrational say.
“The good news for DL though is that most colleges offer such a course and he could easily remedy this situation.”
But this could challenge his belief system. Learning logic and how to think critically may make him question his assumptions and his “proofs”.
And it takes a person with very strong faith to allow his beliefs to be challenged and take an objective look at what you believe. It is much easier to choose what to believe, close your mind, and hold onto magical thinking (and falsely call it “faith”) than to open up yourself to a possible change in thought.
Once again, its apparent to me that the anti-gays know they’re lying and they somehow think they can still be moral people despite it.
I think, Randi, you’ve hit on an alternate definition to that good old standby – cognitive dissonance. It has been shown experimentally in psych that if you have someone argue a position, as in a formal debate, no matter how much they may initially disagree with it, their views will change to more support. It appears that humans want their internal and external images to match, and so shift their internal views when having to publicly defend specific positions.
For someone like DL, or other rabid “pro-family” leaders, perhaps they have spent so long defending a position that, as it becomes more and more indefensible, they have to make HUGE leaps of logic to continue keeping those internal and external images in line. After all, DL himself has built his whole self-image on his version of “Christianity” and his status as “ex-gay.” Undermine that, and you are undermining his very self, so a bit of truth-stretching would not seem that horrible.
Timothy said:
There is very little point in debating DL Foster.
I strongly agree. The only reason for mentioning him at all is his affiliations with PFOX and Exodus, both evidence of astoundingly poor judgment on the part of those organizations. I’m convinced that his blog posts concerning anything at XGW are little more than bait and he enjoys our reactions – a bit of a power play. Anyone who has tried to google for his blog will find that our articles are about the only way to get there. I’m not sure if that is Google or not.
While he can’t be totally ignored for reasons above, I would suggest that any discussion about him beyond that scope is fairly pointless.
David Roberts
He’s great to hold up as an example of what the ex-gay lifestyle can do to people, it’s just actually engaging him only fuels his narcisism (sp?).
Boo said:
He’s great to hold up as an example of what the ex-gay lifestyle can do to people.
I doubt he was much different before. It takes time to develop that much hate. And we should remember that not everyone who claims to be exgay acts like DL. We have had examples of them post right here (Grace for one).
David Roberts
David,
just a minor thing. Grace is not ex-gay, her husband is.
But Disputed Mutability would be a good example of a reasonable ex-gay person – with whom I may disagree from time to time but who gives regard to logic and thought.
Well, I think but for a different social environment I might be doing exactly what DL is. If you wonder what DL might have been like before getting involved in the “exgay” lifestyle I suggest he might have been like me – perhaps some of you might say that isn’t much of a difference and in a way that’d be correct.
DL and I both have a lot of hate for the pain of feeling badly about being same sex attracted. He blames gays and his same sex attraction for it and hates those, I blame and have hated society but thank god it seems to be changing. It must be terrible for DL to witness this social change and increasingly experience the cognitive dissonance that makes one crazy. Regardless of DL’s unfair sermons (with a veneer of debate) I feel it behooves me to treat him and everyone as if they are capable of goodness and reason. Just because he’s unreasonable doens’t mean I should treat him that way. Although I may fail miserably I feel its a moral responsibility to continue to offer everyone the opportunity to put aside the past and be reasonable. Hava may be correct and DL may be in a downward meltdown which will see him unable to continue his self deceptions and result in acceptance of himself as gay.
Whoa…wow.
Now that I think about it, I was born to be a critical thinker (well, Virgos are like that anyway).
My late father was always reading Shakespeare and taught me to riff on that, not the Bible.
In case anyone didn’t know, I’m named after a Shakespeare character. My name is equivalent to being called “Prince” or “little king.”
Anyway, Papa was all about looking up things from other angles and listening actively.
Him having a psychology degree and all that in his work as a probation officer, he had a serious ‘bullshit meter’.
He liked analysis in everything. I do too.
Might not matter much in Biblical scholarship for me.
But it’s dynamite when you’re working for a police department.
Christine is exactly right, I’m seeing a trend in the young and critical thinking should be taught well before college.
It’s not like it’ll hurt them or their growing brains.
Indeed, it’s vitamin to a growing brain.
Christine said:
I really wish that critical thinking courses were part of high school curriculum in this country.
Absolutely. I think they went the way of Latin (courses), which are also quite valuable as they give a fundamental grasp of the basis for the English language. I remember vividly, however, that most of my teachers in high school were not qualified to be more than baby sitters. Of course, that made those that were truly qualified and caring all the more exceptional by comparison.
If you are out there Mr. David Yates (11th grade English, late 70’s), thank you for caring.
David Roberts
OMG!! I suddenly feel old. I had Latin classes in 8th grade. Of course it was at a private school but I wonder if Latin is available much anywhere now.
My shout-out goes to Mrs. Jones (what was it about 11th grade English teachers in the late 70’s early 80’s?). She not only taught me how to think critically but also instilled libertarian values, an introduction to Ayn Rand, appreciation for alegory and metaphore, and the proper application of personal observation to the greater world around me. When I think back on high school it is Mrs. Jones that I recall most.
I grew up being made fun of for being ‘stupid’ by the two girls who flunked second grade. The irony has never escaped me, however, at one point I decided I would increase my intelligence by reading college textbooks on psychology, philosophy and ancient history. I think that might have saved me from a life of non-critical thought. Special thanks go out to Ann and Leslie for that.
You know, Randi, I was retreating into a pretty crazy internal world when I was trying to be straight, and that started to have an effect on what was going on around me because I started losing touch with reality. Fortunately, I had the background to recognize that something was very wrong. I knew I was losing it and had to change or I’d have a mental breakdown. Living in a university town with a lot of resources, even though the Orthodox community was very isolated from that, was extremely helpful – and the town itself is very liberal, for the most part. It was easy to find very lgbt positive synagogues to go to. My work environment was also very different from my home environment and very pro-lgbt, so I had several support areas to back up my acceptance of myself.
I wonder if a lot of the ‘professional’ Exgays haven’t set up a situation where they’re supported by so many people who are willing to accept any kind of craziness and lack of reasonableness, as long as it goes toward the ’cause’ that it’s more difficult for someone whose whole life revolves around the issue, to listen to internal warnings. Judging from some of the hate that’s spewed from the pulpit and from the government, these days, he may be considered ‘normal’ and ‘righteous’ in his world. The current political atmosphere in the U.S. is pretty cozy towards non-critical thought. Foster does capture the spirit of ‘truthiness’ quite well. Since he’s a minister, the toxic environment for lgbt people, and especially in black churches, no doubt contributes to an entrenchment and validating of his attitudes and homophobia.
I found an enjoyable site as I was wandering about, thinking a bit too much about Foster and environment:
https://www.operationrebirth.com/background.html
He smacks down Foster in the “Is this your preacher” section. Also, he does an excellent job with the Hebrew in his scriptural analysis. Really good to see that happening.
Hava, the pain of not wanting core aspects of self to exist is something no one should have to go through. Society doesn’t benefit by giving large numbers of people this sometimes overwhelming burden for the simple aesthetics of not seeing same sex attractions.
I keep thinking about what Timothy said on another thread. How dare religious conservatives ask that we tolerate their insistence and attempts to legislate we not exist. They say gays don’t deserve protection because they don’t exist, only heterosexuals with same sex attraction disorder. They say we just have a disease but they don’t even give us the same courtesy society normally extends to people with diseases. People with cancer, AIDS, or leukemia can be identified as a group by the law and singled out for protection if they are discriminated against. If being gay is a disease it shouldn’t be any different unless the aim is solely to punish “heterosexuals with same sex attraction disorder”.
If children with leukemia were being commonly bullied in school yards there’s no way Exodus would be claiming they don’t deserve the protection of an antibullying program that defines them as a group. They wouldn’t be saying “they don’t need protection because they are healthy individuals with a wellness disorder”
Rattigan:
“Tallmer’s paper very clearly says that sexual assault is the most common form of attack against lesbians and women in general. How can that be roped in as support for an 80% figure?
She says “most common”. Contrary to what you have argued, DL, that does not mean the same as “common” – it simply means “happens more often than other forms of attack”. It does not imply any figure – just the fact that the figures are higher than for any other attack. As J said, that could mean anything from a few percent upwards.”
THIS…is a “challenge”?
Ok…laughing. But I didn’t know you were a xxxgaywatch spy.
You somehow failed to mention that in your “challenge”. But that’s okay, its expected considering your affiliation with xxxgaywatch.
I guess they’ll award you your certificate in “sleuthiness” now. Congrats.
Where did DL’s response go? I thought I saw him on this thread last night, with a reply that didn’t, of course, answer any of the questions put to him.
I know XGW moderates comments that are off topic or hurtful, but couldn’t his own lack of response stand for itself? After all, he was the subject of the post…
It looks like DL has left a comment on his own blog post, but he hasn’t posted anything here as yet.
OK. I could have sworn he posted. I’ll have to look at the cache on my home computer. It was something about you being a spy for xxxxgaywatch. Perhaps I’m dreaming it all up…?
Ok, I see it in my inbox now. I guess an admin thought it wasn’t worth the hassle of a confrontation with DL on here.
I see he didn’t respond to my points at all, but simply mocked me and said I was an “xxxgaywatch spy”. Actually, I wasn’t yet an Ex-Gay Watch author when I commented on his blog, although I guess it is to his advantage to portray me in the worst light possible!
You know, I’d prefer if you guys would post his response. I don’t see the need in hiding it. It just makes it look like we’re hiding some great rational response that makes us look bad or something when that wasn’t the case.
I saw the response last night and it should be on here…it only helps prove our point about his lack of critical thinking skills.
I agree wholeheartedly with Christine, especially in light of our earlier discussion about the “censorship” of other boards.
If DL Foster were to use abusive language or repeatedly fill up the board with off-topic remarks, I say delete it and ban him.
His post was in bad taste, but I’ve seen other regular commentors (probably including myself on a bad day) say things that aren’t phrased as well as they should be.
I don’t defend him, but I do defend his right to respond to our criticisms–even if he does it poorly and illogically.
ck said:
I agree wholeheartedly with Christine, especially in light of our earlier discussion about the “censorship” of other boards.
In that discussion we acknowledged that each board has the right to control access if necessary. This is not to censor ideas, but to protect the integrity of the discussion. It’s been said many times – XGW is not a free for all. Mike is very eager to allow a wide range of views but when someone habitually abuses that privilege with hateful, disruptive, erroneous, unsubstantiated and off topic posts, it degrades civil discourse for everyone else. That is not the kind of place XGW strives to be.
We don’t need DL’s comments here to show what he is – he does that quite well everywhere else. I realize that some like to poke at DL for sport, but that is hardly enough reason to allow him to post while others have been banned for, quite frankly, less.
David Roberts
ck
If DL Foster were to use abusive language or repeatedly fill up the board with off-topic remarks, I say delete it and ban him.
He did that ck, which is why he was banned, which in turn is why you haven’t seen that from him lately. If one doesn’t listen to appeals to change their behavior, banning is the only thing left.
David Roberts
I re-released D.L.’s earlier comment, which was originally published because I recently cleared the site’s ban list, which consisted mostly of spammers.
D.L. has been banned before for strawman arguments and verbal abuse against commenters.
When D.L. allows polite critics to comment on his blog; when he addresses his critics with the respect and dignity that all God’s children deserve; when he disavows strawman argumentation and ad hominem attacks; and when he demonstrates a genuine desire to engage in civil two-way conversation… then then he will enjoy unlimited comment privileges.
I have no problem with banning abusive comments.
But I find it rather unfair to initiate a post that is critical of DL by name and then eliminate his ability to respond. If we want to ban DL completely, then let’s not make comments about him.
Otherwise, let’s let whomever we criticize have a fair chance to dispute our comments. If there are abusive responses, we can remove them or restrict his responses to just the site where we criticize him. But I would not consider DL’s response, as posted above, to be abusive.
Posted by: David Roberts at June 7, 2006 02:03 PM
Posted by: Mike A. at June 7, 2006 02:14 PM
Okay, guys, I see where you are coming from. I suppose I was surprised that the comment went through and was then revoked. I understand he was banned before; I think that putting the comment up as you have, especially on a post devoted to his blog, makes sense. He can compose a fuller, logical, argument on his blog if he’d like, too.
I don’t want XGW to devolve into slander, ad hominem arguments, and another place for DL to garner attention. But I lean towards letting people’s words incriminate themselves.
So, in conclusion, thanks for putting the comment back up, and I really do appreciate the thought you put into banning/granting access. Let’s hope that at some point he may want to engage in conversation without defensiveness. I look forward to seeing that day.
Timothy said:
If we want to ban DL completely, then let’s not make comments about him.
I actually thought we had done that, in an unwritten agreement sort of way. Even if that were so, Dave would have had no way to know that.
However, it brings up another problem. Should someone be able to restrict our ability to comment on their actions just because they can’t comment here without following basic guidelines? DL has a larger platform than XGW if he wants to use it, so why is his ability to comment here so important? Even if the article is about him? He forfeited his posting privileges with his persistent, abhorrent behavior and unwillingness to modify it. That was his choice, not ours. If that also results in his being unable to respond to comments about his actions right here, then he should have considered that before getting himself banned (which is not an easy task here).
And being banned doesn’t mean you can come back and say things if you are feeling reasonable one day. Any reconsideration of his banning should at a minimum be preceded by his writing Mike with an apology and sincere intention of treating others here with respect while posting germane comments. It shouldn’t be bestowed on him from above.
I think you are seeing unfairness where there is none.
David Roberts
Since the debate about banning and deletion has become public, I may as well put my 2c-worth in.
a) I wasn’t aware DL Foster was banned when I made the post.
b) I don’t think whether Foster can respond here should determine whether we can criticize him. He has his own blog where he can respond at length any time, just as my post here was a response to his blog.
c) If Foster has been consistently abusive or in breach of the rules, I don’t see the problem with banning him from commenting.
d) Allowing him to post and then deleting his comments is quite possibly the worst solution, as I think we’ve seen!
I’m with Timothy on this one. “Exgay” Watch shouldn’t be commenting on people without giving them an opportunity to respond. DL hasn’t forced this on exgaywatch, it is voluntary. Just because DL hasn’t followed the rules of morality is no reason for exgaywatch to do the same by essentially talking behind someone’s back without letting them respond. Talking about people and not allowing them to respond in that forum is DL’s style and totally unbecoming of exgaywatch.
I read Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and a few weeks ago, Ed Brayton spent some time discussing a gentleman whose blog is called “I’m from Missouri” or someting. This guy basically was banned from Dispatches because of his rude and nonsensical posts. He continued to write vitrioloic and ridiculous stuff at his site.
While I found the discussion somewhat humorous, it quickly devolved into Ed’s site hosting snarky comments about the guy, then the Missouri blogger making snarky posts, about how he was banned, yet being criticized on the blog, etc. I don’t think it was necessary. (And I know Mr. Rattigan wasn’t aware of the site’s interactions with DL until after his post–it’s just an interesting parallel to me). It marred my impression of an otherwise polite blogger’s interaction with his opponents.
I agree with the substance of the post itself–DL’s logic is faulty. I’m glad that his comment in response has been re-allowed. Further discussion of his blog gives him more press than he needs (like the blogger discussed on Dispatches, who probably saw his hit counter explod those days) and fuels the feeling that XGW is a bunch of bigots who just pick on people whose views are different.
My thought–include somewhere in the sidebar a list of ways you can get banned. Include positive ways you can contribute. Include a way to get your commenting ability re-instated.
Supplement the DL-specific discussion with a survey of similar logic in other sites. Or, if we want to have posts about him, I think we should allow him the ability to respond here–though there’s no moral problem in letting him reply only on his blog.
Randi said:
talking behind someone’s back without letting them respond.
Nothing is “behind his back”. He has several ways to respond publicly – and does. I might be able to bend the logic enough to agree partially IF we were all sitting around taking personal jabs at DL and taunting him as ck described in the post above. However, Dave simply posted on a publicly displayed article from DL’s own blog. It’s unfortunate that he can’t be civil when posting here (this has nothing to do with morality), but that was his choice.
ck said:
My thought–include somewhere in the sidebar a list of ways you can get banned. Include positive ways you can contribute. Include a way to get your commenting ability re-instated.
That’s a very good idea and one we are working on right now.
David Roberts
Hey, ya’ll, do you ever have one of those days when you just wish you hadn’t opened your big mouth in the first place? :¬D
David, I’m thinking of the people that read one blog or the other, but not both. I usually read only exgaywatch. If either DL or Exgaywatch has a one-sided conversation some of us only get that.
Allowing both sides adds credibility as the reader can decide who’s right and reasonable.
What is it about exgaywatch that makes DL feel like its XXXgaywatch? Does talk of my profound and platonic love for my boyfriend turn him on? Is it easier for him to think of two men being sexual with each other than a man and a woman? Doesn’t he find talk of heterosexual families at all sexual? Guess not.
Randi said:
What is it about exgaywatch that makes DL feel like its XXXgaywatch?
Good grief Randi don’t you get it? It takes two to have a conversation and he doesn’t want to participate. Is it your opinion that no one should be kept from posting no matter how abusive their behavior? Perhaps we should just let him spew out his venomous monologues all day long and call this “DL’s Place”.
There are some important things happening that actually have nothing to do with this guy, could we move on?
David Roberts
Dave said:
Hey, ya’ll, do you ever have one of those days when you just wish you hadn’t opened your big mouth in the first place? :¬D
You bet! Get used to it 🙂
David Roberts
“Hey, ya’ll, do you ever have one of those days when you just wish you hadn’t opened your big mouth in the first place? :¬D”.
Guess that makes three of us now.
Folks,
Please return to the topic of this page: Lesbians, rape, and exgay (mis)information about both.