Transgender policy change

[Col. Flagg]

BSA has not said it's right or wrong.  It's about positioning BSA so that it can continue to provide great experiences and developing character, citizenship and physical fitness.  The 1999 "Dale V. BSA" decision (right or wrong) did horrible damage to BSA because of the marketing and perception result.  This is about trying to get away from a hot button, modern era issue so that BSA can focus on mission.  Largely it's a non-issue that we will not deal with day-to-day beyond maybe attending camps that have to upgrade their bathroom and shower facilities.  

 

I can respect you if you think it's bad.  I have personal opinions on this situation too.  I'd just rather focus on BSA's core mission.   

 

Fred, BSA could have been focusing on their mission WITHOUT making the changes to membership too. But they succumbed to pressure from one side who demonized them and they thought it would stop. It didn't. 

 

BSA might have also thought that making these changes would stem the membership loss, the CO loss, and the financial loss. It didn't.

 

If it is such a non-issue, why couldn't BSA simply ignore it? They had the Supreme Court on their side. They had case law on their side.

 

Please don't fool yourself that BSA made this decision to position themselves to continue their mission. They could have done that by ignoring the social justice warriors and continued to focus on their core members. They didn't. They chose to make a rather significant change. Why? Personally I think it is because they WANTED to make the change for social reason.

 

But make no mistake, BSA could have done absolutely nothing and still focused on the aims and methods of Scouting. Let's not put lipstick on the pig.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[MattR]

I see two different issues here. The first is transgender and the second is coed.

 

First the TG. Irrespective of how any kid comes to thinking of TG, the kid will likely have issues. Just like a whole mess of other kids in my troop. The kid wound too tight. The two kids that were legally removed from their parents. The kid with PTSD from watching his mom smoking crack. The kid with Down's. The numerous kids that saw their parents go through an ugly divorce, some of whom are seeing shrinks. The kids without fathers. The kid that cuts himself. The momma's boys. The kids that are just down. All the boys dealing with hormones . Honestly, these are the kids I have in my troop now. I mean, the odds of a TG kid joining my troop is 1 in 10, but even if one does, it's just one more kid with issues.

 

As for going coed, I have mixed feelings. I see both sides of it. As long as troops can decide their own policy I can make it work. If I did have girls then patrols would not be coed. And you know, I wouldn't mind having a few girls go on a winter campout to shame some self appointed macho boys into getting off their lazy butts.

 

The bottom line here is that I'm playing the cards I've been dealt. It's just like athletes that get bad calls by the refs. It's all part of the game. All kids have issues. They also all have a bit of God in them. So whatever rules come down I'll work with.

 

The challenge I see with either coed or TG is not whether I have kids with issues, it's do I have parents that can help with those issues. My complaint with all of this is that fewer parents are helping out. I saw no drop in participation after the gay issue, but I have seen a gradual decline over 15 years of adults that will help out. Conservative or liberal, fewer adults are setting aside time to volunteer.

[cchoat]

Let's try and look at the bright side of this issue.  Now we will have to spend money to provide additional "Gender neutral" rest rooms and shower facilities at our council and national scout camps in order to not discriminate against the transsexual scouts (and Scouters, yes we might as well prepare for them too.) so that they can be treated like every other boy. And since National is expecting its handling of this issue to apease the PC crowd, (like all their other great changes) they can spread some of the new wealth they expect to gain from all the corporate sponcers that will come rushing back with their check books open and pay for these improvements.

 

Plus, my Council Exec reminded me that the BSA national office will pay legal fees should a unit sponcered by a religious entity decide not to allow transexual scouts to join and be sued for discrimination.  Can I take that to the bank or what?

[Sentinel947]

@@Sentinel947, I have spoken with several scouted and parents that will do the same; pull back from national, council and district and do their own thing. We had two leaders step back from the unit. I am personally stopping any work with anyone above the unit level.

My decision really has very little to do with the change. I joined my troop as a youth in 2005. I became an ASM in 2011. Its 2017. I'm ready to change things up. I'd volunteer more on the district or council level. Its less a time committment.

 

I'm conflicted about the decision. I'm concerned it will have effects on how the program is carried out. Not because of the Transgendered kids, but the rules lawyers and other risk adverse bean counters put in place.

 

In an ideal world, this would be it and troops would be allowed to control their units membership, but I don't think the culture warrirors are finished with us just yet.

 

I don't have kids, so my religious/political beliefs about transgenderism is irrelevant. I can serve transgender youth the same as any other kid.

 

In short, I'm still onboard, but I'm tired and not filled with optimism for the future. This change will make things harder for my troop in a conservative town. I don't expect the liberal culture warriors to stop pushing nor jump into Scouting feet first.

 

I believe in Scouting, my troop, this forum. Perhaps this will blow over and things will be fine.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Sentinel947

[RememberSchiff]

Perhaps the best thing scouts could do right now is double down on the coming Scout Sunday and get their scouts in-church-in-uniform.

 

Thanks for the reminder. There has been too little mention of Scout Sunday and even less of Scout Week.

[robert12]

This only appears to apply to Boy Scout and Cub Scout youth, but not adult leaders and Venturing youth.  This does not take much of an imagination to see where this will be a big can of worms, just a few examples.

• Sally wants to be Bob, but has to register as a girl in her crew.  Now she registers as a boy in a local troop.  One weekend she sleeps in a tent with girls, and the next with boys??  
• Say Sally earns First Class in a troop then decides Boy Scouts is not for her, and drops out.  Now can she earn Eagle in a crew even though registered as a girl?
• Sally is inducted into the OA as a First Class scout, a few years go by and she turns 18, but wants to stay active in the OA.  Since this only applies to youth, she is now considered a adult female for can she participate in OA as a OA 18-20 youth, either as an assistant scoutmaster or Venturing "adult participant"(that is the correct term for those 18-20 in Venturing)?

I just hope the BSA does not do the same as what they did when they allowed homosexual youth.  They stated in this document "This change in membership standards is not a youth protection issue. To consider it a youth protection issue would lead one to believe that sexual abuse and victimization is considered inherent to same-sex attraction. This is not the case."  If that was their position all references to coed actives(latrines, showering, tenting, etc.) in the G2SS should be removed because that could lead one to believe that sexual abuse and victimization is considered inherent to opposite-sex attraction.  

 

My personal opinion is that this will lead to transgendered adults within two years, and all girls allowed in Cubs and Boy Scouts.  How long before they cave on Duty to God?

Edited February 1, 2017 by robert12

[Col. Flagg]

Just wait until those marginalized by the focus on "Scout Sunday" all these years rally for a change that is more inclusive, so that those who are not Christian don't have to be continually reminded of the historical Christian dominance that has been so prevalent in Scouting.   

 

Scout Sunday may be another thing that gets more and more marginalized. Why not? Other tenants of Scouting have already gone extinct.

[NJCubScouter]

Please don't fool yourself that BSA made this decision to position themselves to continue their mission. They could have done that by ignoring the social justice warriors and continued to focus on their core members. They didn't. They chose to make a rather significant change. Why? Personally I think it is because they WANTED to make the change for social reason.

 

But make no mistake, BSA could have done absolutely nothing and still focused on the aims and methods of Scouting. Let's not put lipstick on the pig.

 

I disagree, and I agree with Fred.  I don't think the BSA is intentionally "taking sides" with anyone (any more), they just wanted to try to get this over with, end or reduce the negative publicity, and refocus on growing and improving the organization.  This is the way they decided was the best means of achieving that.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen.

[Col. Flagg]

I disagree, and I agree with Fred.  I don't think the BSA is intentionally "taking sides" with anyone (any more), they just wanted to try to get this over with, end or reduce the negative publicity, and refocus on growing and improving the organization.  This is the way they decided was the best means of achieving that.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen.

 

Sorry, but get WHAT over with? No one -- other than the one side -- was putting a gun to their (BSA) head and shaming them to make a decision. The BSA had case law on their side and could have simply said, "We are a private organization and under the law we can make our own rules. Don't like it, go elsewhere." Membership would not have accelerated it's decrease. Money would not have dried up.

 

Fred's point, as I understood it, was that BSA made these membership changes so they could "get on" with their mission. That's a load of hooey. They could have done the same thing by simply telling the left to go, politely, go pound sand. Instead, they caved. They either did it because they wanted to, thought it would stop the membership loss and/or because they thought it would stop the loss of donation dollars. But they most certainly did take sides. The existence of the policy put you on one side or other. Of course BSA took sides...and they did it intentionally, because they sure didn't do it by accident.

 

To your point, BSA intentionally took sides to end the argument. To what end? What does this decision get them they didn't have already? Peace? More members? More money? More COs? I am curious what the decision got them that standing their legal ground didn't already provide them. 

[fred johnson]

But make no mistake, BSA could have done absolutely nothing and still focused on the aims and methods of Scouting. Let's not put lipstick on the pig.

 

Argumentative and not based in reality.  Twenty years of bad press and expensive court cases for a society issue that just doesn't affect BSA.  The issue has very small impact directly, but taking a stance on the issue has a huge cost in membership and finances.   Doing "absolutely nothing" was not a choice and a shallow suggestion.

 

BSA did the right thing by trying to move on and move away.  

Edited February 1, 2017 by fred johnson

[fred johnson]

"Don't like it, go elsewhere."

That's what many were doing.  Bad press.  Values that contradicted many of their own charter partner values.  It has driven many away.

 

"Membership would not have accelerated it's decrease. Money would not have dried up.

"Membership would not have accelerated it's decrease" ... it would have continued though. The huge membership issue started when BSA lost access because they wanted public school access but then wanted to march to values different than the public organizations they were recruiting from.  This is part of marching down the path to heal the damage done by 1999 Dale V BSA.  

 

"Money would not have dried up" ... It is because of the membership disputes that caused money to dry up in the first place.  United Way.  AT&T.  many others.  

 

This is about healing and moving on.  

Edited February 1, 2017 by fred johnson

[Col. Flagg]

Argumentative and not based in reality.  Twenty years of bad press and expensive court cases for a society issue that just doesn't affect BSA.  The issue has very small impact directly, but taking a stance on the issue has a huge cost in membership and finances.   Doing "absolutely nothing" was not a choice and a shallow suggestion.

 

BSA did the right thing by trying to move on and move away.  

 

Sorry, but what? Argumentative? Not based in reality? When has a for profit company EVER prospered by pandering to the minority and going against their core membership base? 

 

BSA took a stand on gay Scouts. The membership and financial drop increased.

 

BSA took a stand on gay adults. The membership and financial drop increased. 

 

BSA took a stand on transgender girls. Just wait for the 2017 membership and finance numbers.

 

So I ask you, what good -- other than to appease those like you who think this was the "right thing" and those who were demonizing the BSA for the old policy -- have these changes done for BSA?

 

Where is the increase in membership? Where is the increase in COs? Where is the increase in financial support? That's not argumentative, that's about as real as you get.

 

Always fun to see the left avoid the hard questions and be dismissive by saying things like "augmentative" and "not based in reality". You lot always label things like that when you don't have solid, real world answers for fact-based, poignant questions.

 

You say it's a small issue with a big impact. Show me the facts that support this assumption. What has BSA gained from making these decisions. The facts support increased losses, not any gains.

[mashmaster]

So, I heard a lot of these same issues when the Gay issue was being discussed.  The program at our unit didn't change  we lost a few but ended up gaining others as well so that was a wash.  What I do have first hand experience with was a fine young man that was told after the decision that his troop would not approve his advancement and he should quit scouting.  He came to us and has thrived and shown himself to be a kind and great leader.  He is one of our best examples of how scouting has helped him grow.  Nobody other than a few of us know the reasons why he came to us and frankly nobody cares.  He scouts along with all of our other scouts with only the number issues you would get from teenage boys.  

The people I know that pulled out of scouting also pulled out of public schools and trail life.  As I tell my son often is that we live in a world filled with all kinds of different people.  You don't have to be friends with them but if you show them respect it will be returned.  At least that has been my experience.  

 

If I can't replace the ethnicity/gender/handicap/religion with my own and have it still feel correct then it is a sign to my that maybe I need to change my thoughts of that subject.

[NJCubScouter]

This idea that some people have that "Scout Sunday" is being downplayed, or will be downplayed, does not seem to be correct.  See this from Bryan's blog:  http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/01/09/scout-sunday-2017-scout-sabbath-2017-everything-need-know/

 

There are also references in there to Scout Sabbath (the Jewish version), which has existed alongside Scout Sunday for many years. I remember it from when I was a Scout.  (Interestingly, there is a patch for it on the blog page, which refers to "Scout Shabbat", Shabbat being the English spelling of the Hebrew word for Sabbath.)

 

The article also refers to the Muslim version, which I had never heard of before, "Scout Jumuah", organized by the National Association of Muslim Americans on Scouting.  I think that's great.

 

Although I am not a Christian, I will be at the Scout Sunday service this Sunday at the church that is the CO for our troop, as I have been every year since joining the troop, except when there was an unavoidable conflict.  Scout Shabbat, as I will now call it, following the BSA's lead, is from sundown next Friday the 10th to sundown Saturday the 11th.  Scout Jumuah is Friday the 10th.

[pchadbo]

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.