Can a girl who gender identifies as a boy join a Scout troop now?

[qwazse]

3 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

...

If the founder of your own Young Men movement was a cross-dresser for at least 15 years, then I would certainly think the church would allow for some grace on this issue.

Kinda like telling the Caliphate to give grace for a Muslim's 5th wife on account of the exceptionalism of the religions founder.

Quote

Quick story - when I was in the Army in the early 90's I was deployed to Egypt. I was quite shocked by the affection otherwisestraight men gave to other men. They hugged, kissed, even held hands.

The best thing about the Mediterranean temperament: men who have proper natural affection for one another, just like St. Paul said they should.

[CalicoPenn]

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:13 PM, David CO said:

This is one of the standard boiler-plate arguments that is used over and over by liberals who wish to attack traditional religions. It has become a cliché.

Just curious - do you hold the same disdainful opinion about the "3-act story" when its a conversion from sinner to righteousness?  Is "I was a sinner and hellraiser until I met a preacher who enlightened me on the glory of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and now I am a deacon of my church" any different from the 3-act story you seem to mock?

[David CO]

56 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Just curious - do you hold the same disdainful opinion about the "3-act story" when its a conversion from sinner to righteousness?  

I do. If some guy told me that he was a card-carrying flaming liberal atheist, but then he found his beliefs to be inconvenient because a friend/family member/sweetheart was a devoutly religious conservative, so he switched sides, then yes, I would hold the same distain.

A better example, which I actually witnessed, was a strict, law-an-order, lock-em-up and throw-away-the-key type of person who suddenly switched sides when his own kid was arrested. The opposite would be a liberal soft-on-crime type who switches sides when his own family becomes the victims of a crime. It drives me nuts when people claim to believe in something...right up until it becomes inconvenient or uncomfortable.

(The TV show, Murphy Brown, had a very funny episode about this.)

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by David CO

[Pale Horse]

21 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Two, if someone does try to do it, I hope the BSA does not permit them to do it.  I support the current policy, although as I have said before, I think the wording could use some tightening up, with the GSUSA wording being the model.  I do not support allowing games to be played with the policy.

 

How would they not permit them?  Say they have to stay identified as Boys?  Can't imagine that happening.   Make them start over as Scout and re-earn rank?  Goes against the idea that once earned, you can't revoke rank.

Another thought, what if down the road BSA decides to allow atheists and now a boy decides to "come out" as an atheist and admits to always being one.  Would everyone feel the same way that BSA shouldn't allow that, because he got a head start on advancement that other atheists didn't?

@NJCubScouter I think it goes to your third point in that in a perfect world it wouldn't matter who the first X Eagle scout is.  If they earned it, they're better for it, whether their girl, boy, trans, whatever.

[NJCubScouter]

1 hour ago, Pale Horse said:

How would they not permit them?  Say they have to stay identified as Boys?  Can't imagine that happening.   Make them start over as Scout and re-earn rank?  Goes against the idea that once earned, you can't revoke rank.

Well, I think your idea # 1 does work.  You registered as a boy, you're a boy.  But again, this is all about a meaningless "first."

1 hour ago, Pale Horse said:

Another thought, what if down the road BSA decides to allow atheists and now a boy decides to "come out" as an atheist and admits to always being one.  Would everyone feel the same way that BSA shouldn't allow that, because he got a head start on advancement that other atheists didn't?

@NJCubScouter I think it goes to your third point in that in a perfect world it wouldn't matter who the first X Eagle scout is.  If they earned it, they're better for it, whether their girl, boy, trans, whatever.

Well, right.   Whether it's the first girl, first atheist, first Martian ("Oh no! Aliens!), I don't care.  Nobody should care.  I almost wish we didn't know who the first Eagle Scout was at all.  As for atheists specifically, well, we don't know who was the first Catholic Eagle Scout, the first Jewish Scout, the first LDS Eagle Scout (though I suppose it's a good bet that they know), the first Ba'hai Eagle Scout, whatever, so why should we know or care who the first "avowed atheist" Eagle Scout is, if there ever is one?

[NJCubScouter]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

A better example, which I actually witnessed, was a strict, law-an-order, lock-em-up and throw-away-the-key type of person who suddenly switched sides when his own kid was arrested.

Given my profession, I have seen this a number of times.  People who couldn't give a darn about the constitutional rights of criminal suspects are suddenly experts in whether the police had probable cause to search the trunk of their son's car.  The fact that the search may have been illegal somehow makes the drugs that were found in the trunk mysteriously vanish into irrelevance.i

But on the issue of religion, it is so common for people to switch to the religion of their spouse that it barely merits a raised eyebrow, much less disdain.  Look at Ivanka Trump.  Or my father-in-law, who was a Lutheran until he married my Catholic mother-in-law and was suddenly a Catholic.  Or my daughter, who was Catholic until she married an Episcopalian, and she was suddenly an Episcopalian.  And mixed Jewish-Christian marriages often involve formal conversions, in both directions.  (Not mine, though.  My wife and I got married in the Catholic Church and I politely declined a number of invitations to convert, because I couldn't say I believed something that I didn't actually believe.)

Quote

The opposite would be a liberal soft-on-crime type who switches sides when his own family becomes the victims of a crime.

Happens all the time too.  Wasn't that the plot of "Death Wish," basically?  (Plus the gunfire.)

Quote

It drives me nuts when people claim to believe in something...right up until it becomes inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I think it's an inherent human trait.

Edited June 21, 2018 by NJCubScouter

[CalicoPenn]

5 hours ago, David CO said:

I do. If some guy told me that he was a card-carrying flaming liberal atheist, but then he found his beliefs to be inconvenient because a friend/family member/sweetheart was a devoutly religious conservative, so he switched sides, then yes, I would hold the same distain.

A better example, which I actually witnessed, was a strict, law-an-order, lock-em-up and throw-away-the-key type of person who suddenly switched sides when his own kid was arrested. The opposite would be a liberal soft-on-crime type who switches sides when his own family becomes the victims of a crime. It drives me nuts when people claim to believe in something...right up until it becomes inconvenient or uncomfortable.

(The TV show, Murphy Brown, had a very funny episode about this.)

 

 

Thanks for answering in the spirit in which the question was asked - I wasn't trying to make some backhanded comment - I truly was curious - and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems your answer can boil down to you dislike the hypocrisy inherent in the 3 act story.   I'm not a big fan of these type of conversion stories either - from any political/religious/etc. side.  You're absolutely right - they are so cliched.

[69RoadRunner]

I'm not sure that discussing the YPT issues of sharing a tent with the parents would resolve the issue.  Venturing crews don't allow boys and girls to tent together for obvious reasons. I can't see how those reasons wouldn't apply to a transgender boy.

Likewise, shouldn't YPT rules apply to gay scouts?  We had an incident with a scout who might be bisexual who allegedly made an inappropriate request of another scout in a tent. That scout and several others chose to go to another troop.

How can the rules apply to heterosexual opposite sex scouts but not homosexual same sex scouts or transgender scouts?  Shouldn't they be treated the same? 

[qwazse]

11 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

I'm not sure that discussing the YPT issues of sharing a tent with the parents would resolve the issue.  Venturing crews don't allow boys and girls to tent together for obvious reasons. I can't see how those reasons wouldn't apply to a transgender boy.

Likewise, shouldn't YPT rules apply to gay scouts?  We had an incident with a scout who might be bisexual who allegedly made an inappropriate request of another scout in a tent. That scout and several others chose to go to another troop.

How can the rules apply to heterosexual opposite sex scouts but not homosexual same sex scouts or transgender scouts?  Shouldn't they be treated the same? 

What we call "obvious" reasons can often be cultural. My Italian scout was thoroughly perplexed about the "no purple tent" philosophy.

If you grew from cubs with your brother- and sister- scouts sharing the same canvas, then sex-segregation sounds absurd (and even dangerous) at face value.

If on the other hand you were brought up (as most of us were) with the sexes being segregated "for their own good," then sex-integration sounds absurd (and even dangerous) at face value.

[69RoadRunner]

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

What we call "obvious" reasons can often be cultural. My Italian scout was thoroughly perplexed about the "no purple tent" philosophy.

If you grew from cubs with your brother- and sister- scouts sharing the same canvas, then sex-segregation sounds absurd (and even dangerous) at face value.

If on the other hand you were brought up (as most of us were) with the sexes being segregated "for their own good," then sex-integration sounds absurd (and even dangerous) at face value.

That stills shows an inconsistency in policy.  The policy should apply the same, but it doesn't.

It is also true of adults.  Unmarried opposite sex couples cannot tent together. Gay, unmarried same sex adults can tent together.  The policy, however it is implemented, should be consistent.  

[Eagle94-A1]

22 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

That stills shows an inconsistency in policy.  The policy should apply the same, but it doesn't.

 What about this inconsistancy from the G2SS

"Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader over 21cmust be present for any activity involving female youth."

 

So two females over 21 is OK to be alone with boys, but 2 males over 21 cannot be alone with the girls.

 

Sorry this discrimination needs to end.

[NJCubScouter]

23 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

That stills shows an inconsistency in policy.  The policy should apply the same, but it doesn't.

It is also true of adults.  Unmarried opposite sex couples cannot tent together. Gay, unmarried same sex adults can tent together.  The policy, however it is implemented, should be consistent.  

Other than the specific requirements of the YP guidelines and G2SS, the BSA leaves tenting arrangments up to the unit.  If you have a special situation that you think requires a certain tenting arrangement, and it is not inconsistent with YP/G2SS, you arrange things that way.

[NJCubScouter]

13 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So two females over 21 is OK to be alone with boys, but 2 males over 21 cannot be alone with the girls.

 

Sorry this discrimination needs to end.

Discrimination against who?  Can you identify which person(s) in that scenario are being discriminated against?

[MattR]

15 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Discrimination against who?  Can you identify which person(s) in that scenario are being discriminated against?

The two dads that want to take their daughters' patrol camping but can't because no mom wants to join.

The whole reasoning behind two deep leadership is that at least one of those adults will be, well, an adult. How about 3 deep leadership in this case and we'll just hope at least one dad will be okay. The BSA has never worried about two men being pedophiles with the boys but now they're worried about two men molesting girls. To me, this sounds odd.

[NJCubScouter]

Hmm.  I don't really see that as discrimination.

And besides, I want there to be a female leader on that trip, regardless of whether a male leader attends an all-male trip.

But as I said before, the BSA does not prohibit a unit from adding requirements to YP.  If your troop wants to require three-deep leadership, it can - even if that means the troop is not camping as much as it should because of the added requirement.  (I don't think that's a good idea.) And if your troop, looking ahead in time to when it is a "linked" troop, wants to impose an extra requirement that at least one registered male adult male leader be present on every outing on which boys are participating, they can do that too.  That, I think, is a good idea - although in practical terms it is going to happen anyway in the vast majority of troops, rule or no rule.

And if someone is really so aggreived by the idea that this is discrimination, I would ask, so that must mean you want to let in atheists too, so we don't have any discrimination at all, right?  (That is not really directed at you, MattR.)

2 hours ago, MattR said:

The BSA has never worried about two men being pedophiles with the boys but now they're worried about two men molesting girls. 

I think the point in wanting a woman to be present goes beyond just the issue of child abuse.