Transgender policy change

[HelpfulTracks]

No, he's not wrong because he has different morals.  I made no such blanket statement.

 

He is wrong though if he thinks it's ok to discriminate against one particular set of children.

 

With all due respect you, intentionally or otherwise. 

 

Col. Flag asked what BSA gained from making a stand on this policy, rather than staying status quo.

 

You replied equating his remarks to racism. 

"You could have just as easily asked, what did they have to gain by letting "Colored kids" go to schools with white kids? "

 

Then you said the decision to make the change was morally superior to not making the change. 

"I'd say they have the gained the moral high ground by doing the right thing."

 

Then you told him he was wrong.

"I believe now, just as then, you're on the wrong side by believing either decision is the wrong move."

 

At best you answered what BSA has to gain by staking out what you believe to be a morally superior position and informing the Col. he was on the wrong side, thus a moral inferior position. 

 

At worst it was an ad hominem attack by comparing is question to a racist stance. 

 

That is much of what is wrong with society in my mind. Rather than trying to have an adult discussion, some try to shut down views counter to their own, rather than discuss them, by attacking their motives rather than their arguments. It is certainly not very Scout-like. 

[HelpfulTracks]

chuckled

So far, it seems Transagism seems perfectly fine for all. 

 

Point well taken.  

 

 Is it so different from this debate? 

[CalicoPenn]

Just curious, but to which position in the debate is this question posed?

 

Which position do you think is questioning the legitimacy of God's creations?  If God created all, then God surely created the girls that believe they are really boys and the boys that believe they are really girls.  Who are we to question his wisdom in that?

Edited February 6, 2017 by CalicoPenn

[Pale Horse]

With all due respect you, intentionally or otherwise. 

 

Col. Flag asked what BSA gained from making a stand on this policy, rather than staying status quo....

 Thanks for the play by play recap, though I'm not really sure it was necessary.  He asked a question, I responded; though apparently not to your liking.

 

I would also strongly disagree that it is an ad hominem attack, as I am not attacking him, but his position.  The best argument would have been that I was building a Straw Man argument or making an appeal to emotion, either of which I may have conceded, but certainly not an ad hominem attack.

 

The comparison of this position of refusing admittance to segregation is also a fair one, in my opinion.  Now, just as then, many had strongly held beliefs that they were somehow morally superior to those of black skin, and by allowing them to comingle with their kids, they would somehow contaminate them.  How is this different than the opinion that girls, gays, and trans are unworthy of being Scouts and going to dissolve everything BSA has achieved?

Edited February 6, 2017 by Pale Horse

[Eagledad]

That is much of what is wrong with society in my mind. Rather than trying to have an adult discussion, some try to shut down views counter to their own, rather than discuss them, by attacking their motives rather than their arguments. It is certainly not very Scout-like. 

Yep, this exactly the problem. 

 

Barry

[HelpfulTracks]

Which position do you think is questioning the legitimacy of God's creations?  If God created all, then God surely created the girls that believe they are really boys and the boys that believe they are really girls.  Who are we to question his wisdom in that?

It is my belief that God create everything.

 

By your logic we should question nothing and except everything.

[Stosh]

This post has been removed for obvious reasons.

[NJCubScouter]

In the History Department I was called a "fascist" (when I felt "Uncle Ho" was as likely a liar as the U.S. government) and at Law School a "red" ('cause I thought advising a hypothetical client to stand his ground and shoot down "looters" was poor legal advice when retreat was possible).  Seems to be a matter of point-of-view.  

 

Labels don't bother me all that much.  How about you?

 

That's funny because in the law school I went to, at the time I went there, "Red" would not have been considered an insult.  But it was nothing anything was calling me.  I was considered a right-winger by some, and occasionally heard the word "Zionist" aimed at me, which was not intended as a compliment.  The big heroes among the student body (and some of the faculty) were Fidel Castro, Che Guevarra and Daniel Ortega (then the Communist leader of Nicaragua; this was in the mid-80's.)  I am sure Yasser Arafat had a fan club there too, but I tended to avoid those discussions.

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

[TAHAWK]

No, he's not wrong because he has different morals.  I made no such blanket statement.

 

He is wrong though if he thinks it's ok to discriminate against one particular set of children.

 

We discriminate against females if we exclude them or four-year-olds who want to join.  Ditto for children who refuse to take the Oath or promise to follow the Law - or, indeed, follow the Law.  

 

You doubtless mean discrimination on some particular basis, and you ought to say what that basis is is you hope to communicate your position with any clarity.

[TAHAWK]

It is my belief that God create everything.

 

By your logic we should question nothing and except everything.

"accept"?

[TAHAWK]

Which position do you think is questioning the legitimacy of God's creations?  If God created all, then God surely created the girls that believe they are really boys and the boys that believe they are really girls.  Who are we to question his wisdom in that?

 

I was taught by my faith that God allows evil so mankind has free will to select good or evil.  

 

Religions decide what is good and what is evil.

 

Some of those religions allow that their pronouncements may be in error, and some do not.

 

Some religions disagree with your conclusion and say that the biological female who believes she is a male is simply mistaken, as is a person who might believes that you are a teapot.  

 

Those with whom you disagree may be wrong, but they do not think so, and people act according to their perception of reality.  Ask the people at the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

[NJCubScouter]

I won't try to put words in Stosh's mouth, but generally and historically speaking freedom of association has aligned about creating and joining rather than abandoning and dismantling. Protections offered by the constitution have been aimed at preventing the state from attempting to diminish, discourage or destroy the rights of people to associate with those of similar beliefs.

I was responding to what Stosh actually said, not to some historical analysis of the usual meaning of some of the words he used.

 

Change from within would be characterized by building consensus based on merits of a policy change. I don't know anyone, opponent or proponent of recent policy changes, that would argue these changes came from building consensus from within BSA based on merit, rather than external pressure.

I was not referring to any particular change. I was just reacting to what Stosh said. Staying in an organization and attempting to influence decisions in your direction is one of several options that one has when one believes a change is required.

 

But I guess I will add, "consensus" means unanimity. I realize that a lot of people use it to mean a majority, or a supermajority, or close to unanimous, but it doesn't really mean any of those things. The BSA has never operated by "consensus", whether it be on membership standards or advancement requirements or whether the rank patches should have colorful backgrounds or just khaki, or whether the SPL patch should have 2.5 green bars or 3 silver bars. Occasionally they will make a show of asking the membership their opinions, but we should be under no delusion that this is binding on National in any way. I happen to have agreed with the last three decisions on membership standards (2013, 2015, and this latest one) but that does't mean I necessarily applaud the manner in which they were made, particularly the ones in 2013 or 2015. I actually find it refreshing that this last time, they didn't even make a pretense of asking the members when the ultimate result was (in my opinion) inevitable.

 

And, if we are talking about the 2013 and 2015 decisions (though I'm not sure why we are, again, but if that's what people want to do, have fun), those decisions resulted from a combination of factors, including internal pressure (including some defiant behavior by certain councils), external pressure (including loss of funding from past supporters of Scouting, which you could count as "internal" as well, and concern about losing future lawsuits), and a desire to "get past" the issues, which I guess could be viewed as "internal pressure" as well.   I think the BSA was also concerned that it was on the brink of becoming a regional organization rather than the national organization that it has always been and desperately wishes to remain. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[HelpfulTracks]

"accept"?

 

 

Doohhh! 

 

Thank you sir. 

[HelpfulTracks]

 Thanks for the play by play recap, though I'm not really sure it was necessary.  He asked a question, I responded; though apparently not to your liking.

 

I would also strongly disagree that it is an ad hominem attack, as I am not attacking him, but his position.  The best argument would have been that I was building a Straw Man argument or making an appeal to emotion, either of which I may have conceded, but certainly not an ad hominem attack.

 

The comparison of this position of refusing admittance to segregation is also a fair one, in my opinion.  Now, just as then, many had strongly held beliefs that they were somehow morally superior to those of black skin, and by allowing them to comingle with their kids, they would somehow contaminate them.  How is this different than the opinion that girls, gays, and trans are unworthy of being Scouts and going to dissolve everything BSA has achieved?

 

 

I guess we will disagree about it being an attack, but comparing someones position to racism certainly looks and sounds like the proverbial duck.

 

I have not read every word of every post in the thread, but the vast majority of post on this subject have not been based on moral objections, though I am sure there are some that have them. Most of the objections I have read are about eligibility,  logistical impact and legal concerns. 

 

And while the debate over "gays" certainly was held primarily over moral issues, the issue around "girls, and trans" is about eligibility. BSA has had eligibility standards since day one, though some have changed in matters of degree over time. BSA has eligibility requirements for age, belief in God, and gender (or more accurately biological sex) as well as obedience to the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Eligibility requirements do not mean anyone is unworthy, but they simply may not meet such standards. 

 

You have used some inflammatory words and comparisons in your post, I know that it is a popular tactic of late and a seemingly effective one for shutting down debate, but it adds little. I would hope we could be more reasoned on this board, or at least try to be. 

[Eagledad]

Which position do you think is questioning the legitimacy of God's creations?  If God created all, then God surely created the girls that believe they are really boys and the boys that believe they are really girls.  Who are we to question his wisdom in that?

We are supposed to question God. God creates all of us to glorify Him. God creates us with strengths and weaknesses to guide us as we grow toward Him. Our weaknesses challenge us to grow in Gods light, and clear our vision toward our strengths. 

 

Now that we got that out of the way, I personally don't feel that scripture is the higher issue here except that some are motivated by ideals instead of consideration of the youth. I feel the intellectual challenges are pragmatic in the applications and results of both the scout and volunteers. 

 

My concerns in the order of priority:

 

1. Health of the scout. Mental stability of children and young teens varies a lot from their environment and capacity. Many youth have taken a path of sexuality because they didn't feel that had a choice at the time. As I said earlier, the BSA has chosen to put volunteers in a situation where they may be encouraging the scout toward more instability, not less.

 

2. The BSA Mission and Vision. I have been doing this scouting stuff long enough to know that changes such as these rarely help the volunteers ability to develop a program that helps boys grow toward being better ethical and moral decision makers. Someone even mentioned the addition of adding women leaders. The history of changes in the troop program and adult training pretty clearly show how adding women leaders has made reaching the Mission and Vision more challenging. And for those who like to turn words around to distract discussions, it has little to do with the gender, but more to do with the lack of experience.

 

3. Adding procedures that require additional volunteers and special accommodations usually restricts patrol method. I have worked with a lot of different types of mental challenges and they do take away from the overall advantages of a patrol method program.

 

For me, the troop program is about guiding boys to develop habits of making decisions based from the virtues of the Oath and Law. Any changes that take away from that goal should not be considered.

 

Barry