Transgender policy change

[TAHAWK]

I must hope you are mistaken, and I do.  

[NJCubScouter]

Predictions are best written on the wind.  

 

I couldn't hear you, it was too windy.

[Eagledad]

I must hope you are mistaken, and I do.  

Good for you. I relish the glass half full.

 

Reading data and applying it is what I do for a living. And I'm pretty good at it. 

 

Still, once in a while incomprehensive optimism balances historical evidence.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter]

This has to be one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen in this forum, and I've seen plenty.  It seems like people are discussing every decision of the BSA on membership and leadership standards over the past 30+ years, all at the same time, and in a few cases it has been unclear which specific issues are being discussed in any given post.  Not to mention we are at 17 pages and counting in just over a week.  I can just imagine someone new to the forum, and/or new to Scouting, trying to figure all of this out. 

[John-in-KC]

NJ,

 

It's confusing because this is arguably the most confusing youth membership decision along the historic trail.  Volunteers in my Council believe the next step will be full program gender integration, and it will happen before 2020.  Those same volunteers are hoping National plans all the training and support before rolling out the change, but they are expecting it will be the usual charlie foxtrot from on high.

Edited February 6, 2017 by John-in-KC

[EmberMike]

NJ,

 

It's confusing because this is arguably the most confusing youth membership decision along the historic trail.  Volunteers in my Council believe the next step will be full program gender integration, and it will happen before 2020.  Those same volunteers are hoping National plans all the training and support before rolling out the change, but they are expecting it will be the usual charlie foxtrot from on high.

 

I believe you're right, although not sure I agree on the timing. The transgender policy was spurred on by the legal challenge from the NJ boy's family. I don't think the BSA would have voluntarily made that move so soon after the change to the gay membership policy. As it stands, the transgender change is actually a decent stepping stone towards total gender inclusion, so it stands to reason that if the BSA is indeed headed in that direction, they would have pulled the trigger on transgender membership at some point regardless of whether it ended up in the courts or not.  

 

But again, I don't think they would have done it so soon unless they had to. So the idea of a co-ed program by 2020 is, to me, a very aggressive timeline. 

 

The rollout, I can't really even imagine how that would work. Everything that needs to be addressed to make that happen, it's a staggering amount of work. Thinking about the re-write on handbooks alone makes my head hurt. 

 

But when it comes down to it, I do believe it will happen, and it will be necessary to save the organization. Nothing else seems to adequately address the steadily declining membership numbers. 

 

There has to be a breaking point at which the BSA will not want to cut more jobs or sell off more resources to survive, and they'll have to go co-ed. It will happen. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by EmberMike

[Col. Flagg]

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. It doesn't necessarily make what you believe correct.

 

Thanks for the condescending tone. I guess the retort you're looking for is, "Well, it doesn't make your assertion true either." Meh.

 

I guess "try" is the key word there. To try is not necessarily to succeed. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a parent suing to get his/her son into a particular unit that does not want the youth, if there is another unit available in which the youth will be welcomed. In the case of the 8-year-old from New Jersey, the parents sued because the BSA would not let their son into any Cub Scout pack. I haven't seen any more articles about that situation, but one would hope that the policy change resolved that lawsuit.

 

You assume there's another unit available. You further assume that the goal of the suit is to get their kids in Scouts as opposed to simply gratuitous litigation. But that never happens. BSA never backs down from threats to change policy.

 

I am not familiar with that "rather pathetic track record". Can you identify what cases you are talking about?

 

Ah, well, let's just stick with the latest one (law suit). I don't have time to quote the others. It's just a matter of time before this group or this girl file a law suit. They've already wasted Council time by submitting applications which the Council sent on to national.

 

[Eagledad]

 

 

There has to be a breaking point at which the BSA will not want to cut more jobs or sell off more resources to survive, and they'll have to go co-ed. It will happen. 

This was said many many times just on this forum about the gays and that didn't happen.

 

I can only suggest a look at the history of youth scouting organizations in North America that made significant membership policy changes. None have recovered to the numbers they had before the changes. Last I heard a couple years ago, the Canadian scouts was still around 60% after 20 years. 

 

If folks are going to argue for adding girls, they might be better off arguing the addition of girls would improve the quality of the program. At least then no hard data could be found to prove the theory wrong. 

 

Barry

[Col. Flagg]

Just throwing this out there, but I have heard the stat of 1-2% of all Venturing Scouts actually work on or achieve any advancement awards.

 

It would be interesting to see if this would change in a coed (Boy) Scouting program. And what would Venturing become if Scouting takes on girls? It would seem superfluous.

[TAHAWK]

Good for you. I relish the glass half full.

 

Reading data and applying it is what I do for a living. And I'm pretty good at it. 

 

Still, once in a while incomprehensive optimism balances historical evidence.

 

Barry

History TOLD us that no team more than ten points behind HAD ever won the Super Bowl.  Were Brady and the Pats guilty of incomprehensive optimism?  

[RememberSchiff]

IMO, scouting program changes in the 70's like the Improved Scouting Program, White Stag, and Eagle Advancement, did more irrevocable membership damage than membership policy changes. Even Green Bar Bill could not undo the damage!

 

Let's see do I have this correct, any woman can be a Boy Scout leader (1988) but her daughters cannot join Boy Scouts unless they are transsexual? 

 

My $0.01,

Edited February 6, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[Stosh]

This has to be one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen in this forum, and I've seen plenty.  It seems like people are discussing every decision of the BSA on membership and leadership standards over the past 30+ years, all at the same time, and in a few cases it has been unclear which specific issues are being discussed in any given post.  Not to mention we are at 17 pages and counting in just over a week.  I can just imagine someone new to the forum, and/or new to Scouting, trying to figure all of this out. 

 

Well, this is one of the most confusing issues I have ever seen on this forum, too.

 

When people start making up new definitions to circumvent the world that has been defined since the dawn of written history, it tends to get a bit confusing.

 

It might be a bit segregationalist in nature to avoid such situations, but for the sake of personal safety in many instances, it is the choice I am choosing to take.  I do believe I still have the right to associate with whomever I choose.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

Ah, well, let's just stick with the latest one (law suit). I don't have time to quote the others. It's just a matter of time before this group or this girl file a law suit. They've already wasted Council time by submitting applications which the Council sent on to national.

 

Ok, let's go back to what you said.  You said this:

 

And the BSA has a rather pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units when lawyers get involved.

 

I asked you for proof of that "pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units".  That would require that you give multiple examples of a unit being sued and the BSA failing to defend the unit in the lawsuit.  You haven't given one example.  Your first link doesn't work, and your second and third links involve lawsuits that have not been filed, but you think they might be.  Even if they are, it doesn't prove your point unless a unit is sued and the BSA leaves them hanging out to dry, which can't happen unless the lawsuit is actually filed.

[Col. Flagg]

 

I asked you for proof of that "pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units".  That would require that you give multiple examples of a unit being sued and the BSA failing to defend the unit in the lawsuit.  You haven't given one example.  Your first link doesn't work, and your second and third links involve lawsuits that have not been filed, but you think they might be.  Even if they are, it doesn't prove your point unless a unit is sued and the BSA leaves them hanging out to dry, which can't happen unless the lawsuit is actually filed.

 

 

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2013. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local units rather than taking the heat at the national level.

 

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2015. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local units rather than taking the heat at the national level.

 

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2016. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local councils BUT the impact on the local unit is still yet to be determined. 

 

It would take too long to cite all the cases that were brought against the BSA over the years to show how the eventually caved in these three instances. 

 

I would call shifting the liability and risk to the local units in the examples above a pathetic track record of looking out for the local units. The local unit does NOT need to be sued for the BSA to have failed in their responsibility toward us. They merely need to shift the burden, risk and/or liability to the local unit for that to happen....and they have.

[NJCubScouter]

History TOLD us that no team more than ten points behind HAD ever won the Super Bowl.  Were Brady and the Pats guilty of incomprehensive optimism?  

 

I think they were the beneficiaries of a bad call.  I don't think that receiver had control of the ball before it touched the ground in the fourth quarter.  Even more significantly, my wife agreed with me.  Or to be technical about it, I agreed with her.  It always seems to work out that way.