Transgender policy change

[Col. Flagg]

But to be honest, that's the point.  BSA is not taking a stand.  They are leaving it to the charter org and parents.  BSA is saying if you want to be in scouts, we'll help you find a unit that will work with you.  That's not about being left or right.  It's about working with each other.  Previous stands were about taking a moral stand on values.  A stand that often contradicted the values of the very charter orgs BSA charters.  

 

Again I will ask, what did BSA gain from making this change? They've lost a great deal, but what did they gain?

 

By changing their policy they most certainly took a stand. They made a change. They could have just kept the status quo. Once has to ask why didn't they? 

[NJCubScouter]

Okay.  You made me laugh when you say "you lot" referring to me as leftist or liberal.  That's actually quite funny.  You have no clue about my politics or my opinions on transgender issues. 

 

I also laughed when I saw fred johnson being labeled "left", but I figured I would let him speak for himself first.  Now I'll say that having read his posts for the past few years, it is ridiculous to call him "left."

 

In fact, there is way too much "labeling" going on in this thread:  Conservative, liberal, left, etc.  It is a convenient shorthand that is often inaccurate, especially when applied to "the other side."  I recall that this was a pet peeve of Old Grey Eagle, who for the benefit of the newer members of the forum, was a moderator and a great guy, who sadly passed away long before his time.  He would always bristle when these easy and inaccurate labels were thrown around.  I guess now I will do it for him.

[NJCubScouter]

I pray that you never have to see the anguish, self loathing, depression, confusion and struggles, that a transgender person feels, having watched it first hand, having it leading to the death of a very good friend at her own hand, I know what she went through.  Essentially disowned by her family, shunned by the public, and called every name you can think of, I can only think that if this policy change allows ONE youth to LIVE to be happy and well adjusted as an adult, then it is a success.

 

This is not a choice that they make.  They do not choose to be outcasts in society, they do not choose to be ridiculed, they do not choose to be told just deal with it. A little understanding and compassion goes a long way.

 

A Scout is Kind

 

Great point.  I have never known a transgender person, but I cannot imagine that it is an easy thing to do or something that one does lightly.  Some people seem to think it is some kind of "fad", but look at some of the comments in this thread and the last thread.  Who would want to endure something like that for something that wasn't real?

[fred johnson]

But you want it to reject the values of the other half of the country right? I believe the BSA is trying to move away from rejecting either half. The BSA should not be a conservative or liberal organization, Christian or non-Christian. No one group "owns" it.

 

That was the big mistake of the Dale decision. The BSA decided to pick a side and that hurt it (and betrayed all of the scouts and scouters that weren't "on" that side). Now the BSA is trying to fix that mistake. 

 

Well said.  It's not about picking a side.  It's about serving the nation.

[Col. Flagg]

Well said.  It's not about picking a side.  It's about serving the nation.

 

ROFL. Ok. Then why not serve the other half of the nation for a while? Just for the sake of equity.

[Sentinel947]

ROFL. Ok. Then why not serve the other half of the nation for a while? Just for the sake of equity.

I'm not sure how this decision stops the BSA from meeting your needs. Perhaps you can explain it to Fred. The quips are witty, but they don't help anybody understand your perspective.

[EmberMike]

From the congressional charter of the BSA

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

 

This is the same text that is still found in the Bylaws of the BSA, chapter 1 section 2.

 

The BSAs purpose is clearly to focus on boys.

 

All of the virtues mentioned in your quote (do things for themselves and other, scoutcraft, patriotism, courage, self-reliance, etc), they aren't the exclusive domain of boys. Just bolding the word boys doesn't make them things that can only be taught to boys in an all-male setting. If you changed the word to "girls", the rest of it would read just as logically and realistically as it does for boys. 

 

Yes the BSA has been a boys' organization. But the core of the program has never been dependent on gender. If someone were to hypothetically sneak through the program as a boy when in reality they were female, all of the gains they made in going through it would still benefit them the same as if they were male. The same character-building, self-reliance, bravery, all of it. 

 

I stand by my previous statement. BSA is about character-building. Always has been, always will be regardless of gender and membership policies. 

[numbersnerd]

Well said.  It's not about picking a side.  It's about serving the nation.

 

When you decide to serve a very small minority and alienate a much larger population (not saying all of the existing membership, but one certainly much larger than the new desired target), how is that 'serving the nation'? 

How is alienating far more potential member families and failing to reach more of our youth a positive way to 'serve the nation'?

How does declining membership, declining operating funds, new rounds of ridicule, and a diluted brand and message better 'serve the nation'?

 

Seriously. These are not rhetorical questions. These are the issues the BSA now has to face. And because of that,we, the locals, the volunteers, the believers, will have to deal with the eventual consequences. That or walk away.

Without effective and comitted volunteers to run and deliver the program, how is that 'serving the nation'?

[pchadbo]

I would have to disagree.  I would love to look like a model or have the ability to fly but it's never going to happen.  I can't just decide that I feel like I can fly and then jump off a building and have it be true.  Sorry, life doesn't work that way.  I have no problem with people who decide they want to be a different gender or race or animal (Yes, that happens) but don't force that on others.  Just because they want to be a boy doesn't mean that they are.  And it sure as heck doesn't mean that others need to accept that.  I would never force myself into a group that I don't belong in just because I want to be in it.

I will allow you your ignorance, wish you well in your endeavors, hope you continued sucess in being an "all around trouble maker" and bid you good day.  I SAID GOOD DAY!

[numbersnerd]

I will allow you your ignorance, wish you well in your endeavors, hope you continued sucess in being an "all around trouble maker" and bid you good day.  I SAID GOOD DAY!

Name calling. Nice. 

[Oldscout448]

SO again I will tilt at windmills. . .

This policy applies to BOYS who live, act and identify as BOYS (regardless of genitalia).

IF you get a TG scout applying to your Troop, you may know that they are TG but you also may not. 

If it is up to the TG Scout enrolling, they most likely would NOT want you to know.

THEY ARE A BOY.

THEY WANT TO BE TREATED AS A BOY.

TREAT THEM AS A BOY.

 

The rest is adult crap.

I cannot help but be reminded of a question  from Pres. A. Lincon to his cabinet during the Civil War

 

" if you count a sheeps tail as a leg, then how many legs does it have?  

 

Five?

 

No.  Four.  No matter what you call it, a sheep tail is not a leg."

[David CO]

Name calling. Nice. 

 

Krypton_son uses "All Around Troublemaker" as his byline, so I suppose that's fair game. 

[NJCubScouter]

I was hoping not to have to say anything in a moderator capacity in this thread.  I would say that the moderators collectively (myself being part of the collective) have given this discussion a fairly long leash, especially when we consider the statement by the owner of this forum that is "pinned" at the top of Issues and Politics, which might have been interpreted to require action against a significant number of posts in this thread.  I have justified to myself letting things go where they may, due to the slight differences between that situation and this, but the differences are really really slight.

 

But now I am noticing that some posts are getting "personal" against other posters, which is a more "traditional" reason for the moderators to get involved.  I am not going to single anyone out.  I am only talking about a few posts. But please do not comment on other forum members.  Focus on the ideas expressed in the posts.  This is a major decision and was a pretty big surprise, and it is to be expected that there would be strong disagreement.  But let's keep it to what people say, and not on the people themselves.

[numbersnerd]

Krypton_son uses "All Around Troublemaker" as his byline, so I suppose that's fair game.

 

I was referring to the "ignorance" part. Nice, respectable attitude towards a differing opinion.

[David CO]

Okay.  You made me laugh when you say "you lot" referring to me as leftist or liberal.  That's actually quite funny.  You have no clue about my politics or my opinions on transgender issues.  

 

But to be honest, that's the point.  BSA is not taking a stand.  They are leaving it to the charter org and parents.  BSA is saying if you want to be in scouts, we'll help you find a unit that will work with you.  That's not about being left or right.  It's about working with each other.  Previous stands were about taking a moral stand on values.  A stand that often contradicted the values of the very charter orgs BSA charters.  

 

BSA provides a program and structure.  Leave the value choices to the churches and the charter organizations.  They do a better job than any of us on this.  

 

You have given us a few clues over the years, but just clues. Nothing definitive.  

 

If BSA is to become a values-neutral organization, that would be quite a change.  Yes, BSA provides a program and structure.  A pretty good structure, in my opinion.

 

BSA used to also provide scouts with a sense of shared values and common purpose.  A scout is a friend to all, and a brother to every other scout. That is what we are losing.

 

Yes, my scouts can still benefit from scouting.  We can still use the scout program as a boilerplate upon which we can add our own values.  Recognizing that these are not shared values, we really won't have any common bond with scouts from any other unit, council, or country.  

 

A scout is a friend to all in our Chartered Organization, and a brother to every other scout in our unit.

 

Perhaps that is what scouting has come to.  Maybe that is what scouting must come to.  Every man for himself.  Very sad.

Edited February 2, 2017 by David CO