Telling the story from our point of view

Blog Archive

December 14, 2005

Regan Ducasse and unfree speech

Exgaywatch's resident uncelebrated commenter Regan DuCasse has been known to flow freely at the mouth or rather the keypad when it comes to gay issues. By her own admission, she isn't gay, has never been gay nor is she exgay. But still seems to relish in the idea that she is the only black "het" female (her self description) amongst a largely white, homosexual male complaint club. Strange bedfellows, indeed? Despite the lack of experiential connection, Ducasse fancies herself a savior-ess of the gay community. I decided to examine one of her many (an understatement) tirades about homosexual rights.

"Bennett and those like him, don't want anyone around who opposes or has any dissenting facts to express. After my experience with ex gays who are bloggers, it's clear there is a distinct air of snobbery, dismissiveness and lack of intellectual exchange. When you don't allow dissent and the only views expressed are mostly your own or those who agree with you, then this is a clear indication of someone very immature and intellectually dishonest."
When one considers the principle of positive people, Ducasses just isn't one of them. Though she criticizes Stephen Bennett and just about anyone who won't afford her mouth unrestricted accusation access, it is quite normal for any human being not to want to associate with other individuals whose sole passion in life is to spout unsubstantiated, derogatory ideology. I'd put the axe to the root myself. As a matter of fact, I have oft times. Ducasse's alter ego "strong black woman" drops in every now and then to declare that's why most exgay men cant handle her. I beg to differ. Unless your Jason and his ubercourageous band of Argonauts, most men would run away from a harpy.
"I was reading an article from Cambridge, England, about a woman writer who was very critical of gays who adopt children. Her concern mostly for gay men who do. She wasn't just critical, but her inference was that gay men are dangerous to children. Or that they were given preferential consideration over other men. She posited that two heterosexual men wouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Where she was wrong about that was if this was a single hetero parent who was adopting, and as back up in case of crisis, the godfather, grandfather or uncle could also have power of attorney for that child. Hetero men usually aren't a COUPLE."
Ducasse: "Don't criticize gays, or you will have to deal with me." Although Ducasse claims marriage (pressumably to a biological male), I get the unction she is convinced such men are responsible for the condition of homosexuals. Call it creative escapism if you will. Call it victimology 101 if you cant call it that. Ducasse reinteprets most things to fit into her incredibly narrow view of humanity. Case in point, she provided no proof that what the English woman said indeed meant that "gay men are dangerous to children." To her, "inference" and implication are much more important than direct truth. This type of anti-intellectual repositioning of another's words serve her well for emphatic setup statements that follow: "Hetero men aren't a COUPLE." (her emphasis and disdain). Besides, the whole scenario she cites is like a Johnny Cochran moment from the OJ trial. That glove just don't fit!

"The issue was over her being investigated for her opinion on gay men and she resented the investigation. She called in censure and a slam on her free speech. However, what she and others who say SLANDER a group fail to understand, is there are consequential risks TO WHO THEY SLANDER."
What honest and decent citizen wouldn't resent an "investigation" by thought police? Should the woman have instead danced in the streets to the sounds of Miami Sound Machine? Interesting Ducasse should bring up slander (she later changed it to "libel"). Relative to the law slander is oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. What exactly did the woman say that injured a homosexual's reputation? Well, ole reliable Ducasse expects everyone to just take her word for it. The woman slandered gays. After all, she read the article...and interpreted it.
"If a potential adoptive gay father loses his bid for a child, or an innocent gay man, (as in the case of a young bartender who was beaten to death recently there in London) is compromised because of what she says that isn't factual, but prejudicial, then YES...she deserves to be investigated and the motive for her slander censored, if necessary."
That's a mighty big if, considering the law doesnt restrict gays from adopting. Its about the law, stupid. If the law grants the right, regardless of what people say, you can do it. However, opponents have the same right to openly criticize the law and the people benefiting from it. That is how it works in free speech societies. But in Ducasse's orwellian worldview, that simple principle is excised. Free speech is only for people who agree with her gayviews. Hmmm, isn't that what her beef was with Stephen Bennett?
"The people who open their mouths and because of the nasty things said about the group they speak on has horrible results, then they should be has horrified for their own speech too. Words DO hurt, that's why those that don't know or care what that hurt does, risk having to be FORCED to know. I wish people understood their responsibility when it comes to speech and the results they are looking for."
I wonder if she really lives by such lofty idealisms. When she hatefully commented that she "had no sympathy" for an sweet Catholic lady who was murdered by an enraged homosexual man, I wonder if she has any feelings for anyone who suffers outside of her worldview. Although she frequently drops anecdotes of mayhem and murder in her postings, one wonders if they are nothing more than handy stories to make her case.

Okay, Im exhausted now.

  • Reference: Queer Quotable

    Randi Schimnosky said...

    Mr. Foster, Regan Ducasse is one of the most insightful commentors at Exgay watch. She has a perspective that others there have not and do not seem able to provide, one that is profoundly accurate and understanding of the oppression of gays by people like you. Far from what you say she clearly has a deep experiential connection to what you assume to be a predominantly gay white male group. I was deeply impressed with her writings for some time before I realized she wasn't the gay white male I assumed her to be - a big surprise given the deep understanding she clearly has for what its like to be unfairly discriminated against as a GLBT. She's helped make it clear to me that there is considerable similarity between the discrimination she experiences as a black women and what GLBTs experience. I also feel a kinship to her because I relate to those same experiences of discrimination she's felt both as a woman and a black. You could see that too if you weren't so practiced at hiding your feelings and reality from yourself.

    It is the height of hypocrisy for you to criticize Regan Ducasse for suppressing free speech when you have banned her from responding to your mischaracterization of her. She was referring specifically to censoring speech that leads directly to major disruption in someone's life, or their death. You are indiscriminately censoring her even though her speech threatens no one in a significant way - it's not a big loss to any anti-gay's life to not be able to encourage others to significantly damage GLBT lives.

    You ignore the main issue Regan was talking about - the serious harm anti-gay speech may cause - to complain about her summarizing an english writer without specific examples. Then you hypocritically do the same thing to Regan, making the sweeping dismissal that she has an incredibly narrow view of humanity but provide no quotes or specifics yourself to back it up. You just interpret her for everyone and expect them to take your opinion for it. What Regan said about the english woman writer was typical and consistant with the stances usually taken by anti-gays. What you said about Regan is 180 degrees the opposite of my experience with Regans balanced and expansive view of humanity. What you said about Regan is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof and you've provided none. You've got that reality filter going big time and it begins with a decision to accept the intellectual dishonesty presented to you as a child, the belief that out of the thousands of religions over the millenia yours must be the one true one for no particular reason other than the accident of your geography of birth.

    There's no comparison to the suppression of dissenting views, facts, and logic by Stephen Bennett, anti-gay "exgays" like yourself, Alan Chambers, etc. and what Regan was talking about regarding speech that leads to murder of gays. I noticed you didn't have any concern or sympathy for the gays she mentioned murdered due to anti-gay hate speech. You had no comment on that, that's not at all important to you, all that matters is that some "christian" might be investigated by the thought police for triggering a loss of life or any of the myriad of other severe problems cause for gays between that and the destruction of a gay family because hate speech interfered with an adoption somewhere where the law allows such interference.

    Stop the lies DL. Tell your audience you seek out Regan to abuse her and then immorally deny her the right to respond by banning her from posting to your article about her, claiming you don't want to associate with her when you sought her out in the first place! A moral and reasonable person always gives someone they verbally attack opportunity to respond, what about you? Are you so afraid of the inferiority of your position that you won't risk a sincere one for one trade of questions and answers? That's the hallmark of a sincere search for the truth and civilization itself. You need to look long and hard at yourself and think about what your religion means without the foundation of fairness you so studiously avoid.

    DL Foster said...

    how much did she pay you to say all that?