Why the BSA should have stayed away from the transgender trend, part 2

[ianwilkins]

34 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Technically: oxymoron.

Oh the shame. Corrected in my usage of English by an American. I've let myself down, my family down, and most of all my country. I shall go and write my letter of apology to the Queen forthwith.

[qwazse]

9 minutes ago, ianwilkins said:

Oh the shame. Corrected in my usage of English by an American. I've let myself down, my family down, and most of all my country. I shall go and write my letter of apology to the Queen forthwith.

To be fair, I lived in Blake's Jerusalem long enough to cook Christmas dinner and hear the Queen's address.

[Hawkwin]

18 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Ah! Government morality as the humanistic guideline. I'm not sure even atheist would agree. 

Barry

So when you misrepresent my reply, what is your desired goal? To get me to respond in kind or simply stop responding?

You win. Moving on.

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

So when you misrepresent my reply, what is your desired goal? To get me to respond in kind or simply stop responding?

You win. Moving on.

Misrepresent? The discussion was in the context of personal morality, you moved into the context of state laws. 

Barry

[Hawkwin]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Misrepresent? The discussion was in the context of personal morality, you moved into the context of state laws. 

Barry

No, I asked you whose morals? Your reply claimed such actions were "possible child abuse."

"Child Abuse" is defined under state (and federal) laws, not under some universally defined and accepted morality standard.

You move the discussion from one of morality to legality by making a legal claim.

So let's backtrack to my original question before you moved the goal posts, whose morals?

[Eagledad]

6 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

No, I asked you whose morals? Your reply claimed such actions were "possible child abuse."

"Child Abuse" is defined under state (and federal) laws, not under some universally defined and accepted morality standard.

You move the discussion from one of morality to legality by making a legal claim.

So let's backtrack to my original question before you moved the goal posts, whose morals?

Legal claim? Where do you get that?

I think you need to start with the posted article and stay within the context that if experts are getting it wrong and putting these kids in harms way, a youth organization should certainly prevent volunteers from contributing to putting kids in harms way. 

Now, if you want to use state and federal laws to define your moral guidance on the matter, OK. But that certainly wasn't where that tone of the discussion started. You can certainly use that moral definition in the discussion, but don't expect me to understand it because is a little out there for me.

So, whose morals? Those who would not want to do more harm to a youth.

Barry

[vol_scouter]

Barry,

Gender dysphoriais an emotional and psychological condition experienced when a person's gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. It is a recognized condition. So to not support a youth with gender dysphoria will harm that youth. There have been some people who believe that some youth are being diagnosed as gender dysphoria who might not actually have the condition. One must be an expert to determine what is the appropriate diagnosis - something that adult volunteers are not able to do unless they are a child psychiatrist or psychologist. So to best support youth, we as adult volunteers should leave such determinations to true experts and support their conclusions.

As to morality, I agree with others - whose moral standards do you use? The BSA does not prefer any religion and is, thus, non-denominational. As a Christian, I am not aware of a scriptural reference to people with gender identity issues.

The BSA's stance seems well reasoned and the correct course for this time in history. In the future, there could be research that modifies what is best for a youth with gender dysphoria. At that time, the new policy might need adjustment. I doubt that will be the case but it is possible.

[skeptic]

Barry; I appreciate your calm response with what seems to me to be the simple truth.  As our society and perspectives within it change, established groups may need to adjust or evolve.  But the key is the latter, rather than to be pushed and shoved by political entities or selfish and obdurate egos or power mongers.  JMHO of course.

[Eagledad]

19 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Barry,

Gender dysphoriais an emotional and psychological condition experienced when a person's gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. It is a recognized condition. So to not support a youth with gender dysphoria will harm that youth. There have been some people who believe that some youth are being diagnosed as gender dysphoria who might not actually have the condition. One must be an expert to determine what is the appropriate diagnosis - something that adult volunteers are not able to do unless they are a child psychiatrist or psychologist. So to best support youth, we as adult volunteers should leave such determinations to true experts and support their conclusions.

Thanks for your well thought out post vol_scouter, it is the discussion I extended.

I agree that this dilemma should be left up to experts. But how many parents will provide that opinion to their Scouts unit? How many scout leaders want to know. Several here insist the parents shouldn’t even be contacted if the scout request it. Doesn’t that suggest the seriousness of needing expert guidance in of itself?

 I can’t tell you the many frustrations of working with Scouts whose parents didn’t explain the son’s medical condition because they didn’t want him to be treated special, or were embarrassed to tell us. But these Scouts were treated special anyway because their behavior was demanded of normal everyday volunteers who struggle to be a good scouter. 

And what about parents that don’t seek expert opinion because for reasons of hoping their child is going through a phase. Or even worse, they don’t care and are just use the unit to babysit and give them a break. We’ve had all these experiences. And have been threatened with litigation when we questioned and requested help with their sons behavior.

What if the scout insist he should be called Superman. What is the scouter suppose to do? What if he insists his parents will cause him harm? Does the volunteer need some expert help? What if the scout uses threatening language and insist the volunteers not call his parents. That happened about 25 years ago.

Do you not see how these situations are related?

This is such a complicated subject and has so much room for harming the child that volunteers shouldn’t be confronted with the risk. 

19 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

As to morality, I agree with others - whose moral standards do you use? The BSA does not prefer any religion and is, thus, non-denominational. As a Christian, I am not aware of a scriptural reference to people with gender identity issues.

This post gives me hope and is extreme discouragement at the same time. I’m glad folks here consider god as the source of morality. However, I’m disappointed that many don’t see morality in this situation or discussion.

Back in the day when the moderators were more lenient with discussions, we had a pretty good discussion about the source of morality. In short, a few posters insisted that atheists can have morals that don’t come from god. I don’t personally agree, but with respect to nonbelievers and whoever else, I presented my opinion pragmatically, so as not to exclude anyone’s moral perspective. I wasn’t looking or expecting a discussion of morality. I must say I was shocked with the references to god and government laws. As I said, I was being respectful to all in saying this is a moral matter that we are discussing and not referencing any moral source. 

I was honestly shocked by the suggestion of my morality resource. I suggested none because I was open all  readers useing whatever source they want. I assumed that “Do no harm” fit in everyones morals. Silly me, maybe I’m wrong. 

It appears to me now that many folks here aren’t Looking at this subject from a moral perspective, or they don’t want to.

Can we really discuss a “do no harm” aspect of this subject without morality? I don’t think I can. I believe EVERY decision we make has a moral intention and consequence. Maybe I’m starting to understand why folks are accepting of doing what’s easy. 

As for what the scriptures say about this subject, the Bible says we are to raise our children in the way of God. And it’s clear of what happens if we don’t. 

Barry

[vol_scouter]

Barry,

It seems to me that you made my point in that gender dysphoria is not a new condition and we, as volunteers, have been having issues with youth since the inception of Scouting. Society has changed in many significant ways since the BSA was founded that has made dealing with youth more challenging at times. The privacy laws and far different standards now prevent handing some issues to the parents. Since this thread is all about whether the BSA should allow transgender youth. My contention is that transgender have been in Scouting since its founding just as have gay youth and adults. Likewise, abused youth, youth affected by chronic illnesses, and youth with alcohol or drug problems. Volunteers have and will continue to have to deal with such problems. The problems might be declared by the parents or discovered by the volunteers. There was no viable way that the BSA could have made any other policy at this point in time. It is the reality.

Your other point has to do with the morality of some situations. Like you, I do not believe that atheists would have a moral code without religions that define right and wrong. The natural order would be for the strongest to dominate the weaker ones. So I agree with you. However, the BSA cannot choose a set of morals. Transgender is a condition that has not been addressed by most religions. While most religions would explore us to be more like the God(s) that are worshipped, such specific behaviors are frequently open to considerable interpretation.

As a physician, I have often seen the long term harm from rejection due to disabilities, illness, or psychological conditions. We, as volunteers, need to treat all youth in an equitable manner to provide them the best opportunities to develop into a functional citizen of character. Excluding certain youth does not seem to be the best course.

vol_scouter

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Like you, I do not believe that atheists would have a moral code without religions that define right and wrong. The natural order would be for the strongest to dominate the weaker ones.

A group of atheists that cooperate would outlast your imaginary brute-force society.  There are human fossils that predate the oldest religions on earth that show they were either handicapped or elderly, and lived long past where they would otherwise die without help from other humans.

Religions are terrible at morals; the Southern Bapist Convention was founded in 1845 expressly to defend slavery, and they finally officially apologised for it -- in 1995.  If a sect as large as the SBC in a religion as large and old as Christianity can't even get a basic moral question like slavery right, I don't consider them useful in deciding moral questions.

[Eagledad]

13 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

Religions are terrible at morals; the Southern Bapist Convention was founded in 1845 expressly to defend slavery, and they finally officially apologised for it -- in 1995.  If a sect as large as the SBC in a religion as large and old as Christianity can't even get a basic moral question like slavery right, I don't consider them useful in deciding moral questions.

Merlyn, we’ve discussed this before, remember? God is perfect, it’s man that messes up . That’s why He sent us a Savior.

16 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

A group of atheists that cooperate would outlast your imaginary brute-force society.  There are human fossils that predate the oldest religions on earth that show they were either handicapped or elderly, and lived long past where they would otherwise die without help from other humans.

But, how do you know your fossils weren’t slaves?

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Merlyn, we’ve discussed this before, remember? God is perfect, it’s man that messes up . That’s why He sent us a Savior.

Even granting that, it still makes religions useless for deciding moral questions.  Christianity literally had centuries to call slavery immoral, yet failed to do so.  Aquinas was OK with slavery and plenty of popes endorsed it and some owned slaves themselves.

11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

But, how do you know your fossils weren’t slaves?

All of them?  There are over 30 examples.  Whataboutism doesn't wave away how worthless religion is for determining morality, it only shows that you're trying to deflect the issue.

[fred johnson]

1 hour ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

Even granting that, it still makes religions useless for deciding moral questions.  Christianity literally had centuries to call slavery immoral, yet failed to do so.  Aquinas was OK with slavery and plenty of popes endorsed it and some owned slaves themselves.

All of them?  There are over 30 examples.  Whataboutism doesn't wave away how worthless religion is for determining morality, it only shows that you're trying to deflect the issue.

Stop with the Christianity bashing.  You may not value it, but many of us do.  

Stop with the history lessons.  They are incomplete and just bashing others.  It's just the latest populist form of hate speech.  

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

7 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

Stop with the Christianity bashing.  You may not value it, but many of us do.  

Stop with the history lessons.  They are incomplete and just bashing others.  It's just the latest populist form of hate speech.  

I'm not saying only Christianity is worthless in deciding morals, ALL religions are like that.  They are based on assertions that try to be unquestionable.

And oh dear, "hate speech", when I'm replying to assertions that atheists can only be moral due to religion.