Other [deleted]

[Gravitational Force]

"First of all, that's a matter of opinion, not a fact. I maintain that gender aligns with the sex of the individual."
1. It's not a matter of opinion. No, you're not entitled to your opinion
2. The science says you're wrong: Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity - Science in the News Because you are.
3. Seriously, you're a 16-year old claiming to know more than every expert in the field. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-15054-002 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123855220000056

 

[Axel The Englishman]

This must be an uncolonised thread, because I'm noticing a lack of civilisation here...

 

[ApfelSeine]

Hall Kervean
To clarify, I was indeed talking about in the UK, and how they desegregated by gender. They have not, to my knowledge, had any scandals or a significant amount of difficulty resulting from this change. Thus, I think it is unreasonable to assume that this would be the case in America, though a reasonable case can be made about regional differences since America is significantly larger than the UK. That said, however, I think it should be an option since there are places in the US which are culturally similar enough to the UK that there would be very little backlash in response, the more likely responses being indifference or positive. That said, only time will tell how people would really respond to such a change. I can only make assumptions based on the reactions that have happened elsewhere in the world. Neither one of us can say for certain how it would impact BSA.

I cannot find the source of your quote about girl guiding being created to give girls a "proper" program of activities for girls. In fact, the links provided contradict what you're saying. After reading the wiki pages on Girl Guiding and Agnes Baden-Powell, I have not found a single instance where it mentions the motivation behind forming Girl Guides to be creating a curriculum of female focused activities. However, I do know from my own knowledge about the history of Girl Scouts that things such as housework, sewing, etc. were included in early handbooks for Girl Guides. Mind you, those activities didn't make up the whole guide, merely a section which was added in addition to the wilderness/camping sections that already existed. On looking it up, those sections were a direct reprint of the existing handbook for boy scouts, just with changes made to include stories of heroic women (replacing the stories of heroic men) and adding the sections about homemaking and nursing. That makes sense, given the mentality at the time. It was, at least according to the linked articles, the popular public opinion that led Baden-Powell to keep the organizations separate, a mentality that I feel is outdated in this day and age, given the success of existing co-ed organizations.

The Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America both have different leadership, and different people they're beholden to (the Girl Scouts, for instance, don't really have to worry about the opinion of the church). So I don't want to see them merged into a single organization. That said, I see no reason that either organization should refuse to let girls/boys join, if only because it could be more convenient for parents to only have to drop kids off at one place, or only associate with an organization that they approve of (since many people don't like BSA and many people don't like GSA as an organization). That's more likely to happen with the boy scouts, who already have a co-ed branch for teenager/young adults, and who are trying to encourage family involvement in cub scouts. As long as the organizations answer to the needs of their members, then there should be no issue with expanding membership. That will, as it was in the time of Baden-Powell, need to reflect the popular opinion of this time. I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to have single sex troops, or even a single sex organization. I have a different opinion, but it may well be that popular opinion differs from mine (would not be the first time that's happened ha ha).

My Boy Scout troop isn't sponsored by or allowed to store gear in the church we meet at, and we can camp regularly. Your troop had the same opportunity as mine, and if you or your leaders didn't use them right, then that's on y'all.
I don't disagree with you there. But it is hard to motivate teenagers in general to do something they don't like. And teenagers are the discussion of the thread for the most part, since Boy Scouts are the ones being affected.
Unless you want to merge 8 year old brownies and 17 year old guys in one troop? Yes, those are the extremes, but still.

I was pretty lucky actually. My troop got to go camping several times a year. Not as often as the boy scout troops in my town, who did have the benefit of church sponsorship, but fairly often. This was because my mom took the time to get the training needed to lead camping trips, and one of the co-leaders took the first aid training needed. Girl Scouts has a much stricter policy when it comes to safety (we weren't allowed to throw candy during parades, for instance), and it's very difficult to find people willing to take the time to get certified to supervise things.

I disagree with you that we are talking about teenagers since there is already a co-ed option for teenage scouts. I expect the change to most likely impact cub scouts, though if it impacted the older scouts as well I would say good on them. I, personally, have no problem with 8 year old girls being in the same troop as 17 year old guys. It's no different from 8 year old boys being in a troop with 17 year old guys. Guys are perfectly capable of mentoring young children of either gender, just as girls are. There is likely a benefit to mentors being the same gender, which is why I expect there to be primarily single-sex troops at first if this change takes effect. Though none of us have the full story on what the plan is, so it may impact cub scouts more, or it may be directed at all boy scouts. Either way, I think it would be a valuable experience. When I think of mentoring figures in my life, I think of my older male cousin, and older (by one year) female cousin. Both taught me different things from their own wealth of knowledge, and I think it was valuable to be able to learn from people with different life experiences.

Moving back to the other points you're making, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your point about the potential sexism/hatred towards girls. I also do not believe that boys (particularly in this day and age) disrespect or hate women. I still disagree with the assertion that just because something was founded as a boys organization does not mean it has to stay that way or no one will join/stay in it. Our sensibilities as a society have changed drastically over the past 100 years, in many ways for the better. We are bridging gaps and learning to be more accepting of other people, and the diversity which exists naturally among humans as a species. I would like it if our organizations and cultural trends reflected that change towards acceptance and that spirit of working together towards a better future.

Naturally, scandals are different nowadays than they would be in 1910. For good reason. We've learned since then that certain actions are not as unusual or as shocking as the people of that time would have believed them to be. There are still things we are shocked by though, some of which is warranted and some of which is not. If there are scandals that have arisen from merging the scouts, ones which reflect 2017's mentality and not that of 1910 (since we're better informed on many things nowadays), that would be useful for me to know.

And yes, if you believe that Boy Scouts was founded specifically to be a way to give boys a way to be themselves away from the meddlesome presence of girls, then I do believe you to be misinformed. If you do not believe that, then my opinion would be based upon a misunderstanding and I'll apologize for that. To my knowledge, and after the research I have done to better inform myself upon the history, I do not believe that the crux of the organization is its focus upon boys. Rather, I think scouting as a whole is beneficial to all young people, be it single sex or co-ed, because of the values of leadership, civic mindedness, and individual growth that it instills.

---

I appreciate all of the thought, research, and civil discussion that has been going on here. I'd like to ask that everyone be respectful of differing opinions since maintaining a calm atmosphere is crucial to being able to learn from each other. (That includes demeaning the worth of anyone's opinion, for any other reason aside from contrary evidence or philosophy. Please also refrain from name-calling.)

I, for one, have learned quite a bit. I attend University in a pretty progressive location, so it is useful to me to be able to hear the opinion and experiences of Hall Kervean , as well as the rest of you who disagree with the proposed change. Although I doubt that I'm likely to change my mind on any of the points I have made, I certainly find it both interesting and enlightening to be able to learn more from people with different philosophies and experience.

 

[Gravitational Force]

ApfelSeine
"That includes demeaning the worth of anyone's opinion, for any other reason aside from contrary evidence or philosophy.."
If that's aimed at me you'll notice I was pointing out that he was claiming that facts were opinions. I provided overwhelming contrary evidence and managed (despite my increasing frustration) to keep from applying what I felt was an appropriate appellation for a person who'd say such things. Civility is difficult when faced with bigotry.

Hall Kervean
Those aren't "Christian quotes." At most they're deist, and the Deceleration of Independence has no legal standing. I quoted the Treaty of Tripoli, which does. The founding fathers of America were deists like Benjamin Franklin (The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin) or Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello) or atheists for the most part. Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason, in which he clearly wrote that religious authority undermines society (History of the Separation of Church and State in America). Enlightenment values came from the increasing willingness to break from religious dogmatism. The Founding Fathers who were Christian did not have that part included in the founding of America.
"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which, would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst."
-James Madison
Since you might not understand, that's him saying that America is not a Christian nation and the notion was rejected by majority vote.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Gravitational Force
I was not directing it at you specifically, but you are included in that. To clarify, I think you were somewhat disrespectful to say: "Seriously, you're a 16-year old claiming to know more than every expert in the field". Everyone, including teenagers, has a valuable opinion to share. An opinion based upon that individual's experience, research, and morals/philosophy. I do not think that Hall Kervean was claiming to be the most knowledgeable about gender identity, though I'll admit I was only really glancing over it to make sure you were all keeping things civil. Which you all were, with the exception of that, and Sano Sauro calling you hypocritical (which I think was unfair, as you were restating the same instruction which you were given earlier). I'm very pleased with the level of civility in fact, but I do think that we all have to watch ourselves to make sure we aren't being dismissive or disrespectful of each other. Otherwise, we won't be able to have a productive discussion.

With that said, I would like the discussion to steer back on topic. The question does not have anything to do with transgender scouts or the existence of transgendered individuals. It also is not related to religion, except where it relates to the current and former state of scouting in America. In future, everyone please avoid dwelling on these topics, unless you tie it into the discussion at hand.

 

[Gravitational Force]

ApfelSeine
Sano Sauro's argument rested on gender being binary and fixed and that religious bigotry held precedence over human rights in America. By doing so they brought it those topics into the conversation and I had to address them in order to refute them. Facts are facts, and they were factually wrong.

 

[ApfelSeine]

ApfelSeine
Sano Sauro's argument rested on gender being binary and fixed and that religious bigotry held precedence over human rights in America. By doing so they brought it those topics into the conversation and I had to address them in order to refute them. Facts are facts, and they were factually wrong.

I can see how you interpret it that way, but I believe his intentions to be entirely different. Many people believe the gender binary to be a fixed state, and while my own experience and research lead me to believe that this is not the case, the gender binary is a belief that is strongly tied to peoples' understanding of the world and humanity. As such, it will not be shaken easily with a handful of related links. I hesitate to tell people that they cannot believe that transgendered people don't exist/are confused because that is essentially asking them to rewrite their entire understanding of gender. In a discussion such as this one, it is not reasonable to expect to try to argue against a person's understanding of what gender is. That is a whole topic in and of itself since there are many vastly different and strongly held viewpoints on the subject.

As for the religious bigotry taking precedence over human rights, my interpretation of the point Hall Kervean was making (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was that there's no way of severing religious ideals from one's beliefs on how things should be done. To insist that someone do so is to tell them to throw out the rules they live by, and that's not something that one should be flippant of (even if I personally defer to a person's right to be treated respectfully over the right to exclude those who don't align with one's viewpoint). Thus, even though our own understanding might be that homosexuality is normal and natural, he is never going to agree about that and neither are many people who are apart of that religion. Religion informs moral code, and unfortunately, there is no winning in a debate of morality because we all believe different things. It's futile to argue on that point, even though it is frustrating for everyone that neither side can really fully understand each other. Refuting them, while it may feel necessary, won't further the discussion.

Bringing it back around to discussing the Boy Scouts, BSA is undeniably associated with Christianity. It is not officially a religious group though, unlike other youth organizations which exist. Thus, its entirely up to BSA how strongly it wants to adhere to the values of the church, and so while the religious angle cannot be disregarded entirely, the decision of allowing girls into boy scouts ultimately has very little to do with the church's stance. It will factor into what popular opinion ends up being, since as I stated earlier it's not possible to separate a person's moral beliefs with their religious ones, but what will factor into it more is what the organization thinks will be good for it.

Overall, the motivation behind it seems to be to increase the family oriented nature of cub scouts (which is why I think this is likely the section of BSA that the change will apply to). The official statement stated that they are looking to cater to the needs of the modern, millenial parents. That includes increased convinience and being welcoming to all family members, and that means letting girls join in on the activities and earn the same badges. Should this change pertain to older scouts, the decision is either an attempt to reflect that today's culture is less segragated by gender, or an attempt to draw in more members. It may be that the change makes more people leave than it will draw in, which is a legitimate concern. It does not seem to have ruined the Scouting Association in the UK though, so I am leaning away from catastrophizing just yet.

 

[Sunbather]

So, I didn't really read much about this, but I don't understand why she's part of the boy scouts, when there's... you know, girl scouts? The literal equivalent for, you know... female children? Like, is she trans? Should I call her he instead? If that's the issue, I'd be in favor of allowing him in. But if it's just an average, female-identifying girl then...

What.

 

[Sunbather]

Just a sister. No special thing added ^^

Okay, but then... Why did she ever even join the BOYscouts? Why isn't her first idea "I'm a girl so I should probably join the girlscouts."? I feel like I'm missing a really crucial part of the story here.

 

[Sunbather]

No idea. Probably because Girl Scouts starts out less active and adventurous for younger girls? Maybe?
I'm a dude so I wouldn't know.
Well, if you are, then so am I.
I linked the article where I found it, and if you read it, then you know exactly as much as I do about it.
I'm certainly not intentionally hiding information.

Okay, so I read it, and it's basically because the activities are different. I assume the two versions are heavily design to fit conventional domestic roles, which isn't ideal. But here's the thing: You have two options to change this, admittedly, shitty situations:

a.) Change the Girl Scouts program to include the same options and activities as the Boy Scouts (and perhaps vice versa)
b.) Get rid of the gendering of the two programs entirely, and allow children to choose what path of activities they wish to pursue.

Like, I get where she is coming from, but allowing girls into Boy Scouts is like... I don't know. Gearing up the horse from the wrong end. The issue here is suffocating young people with gender roles; There's better ways to go about it all, I think.

 

[Gravitational Force]

The whole thing's resting on outdated views on gender. Just separate activities into tracks, merge the two scouting organizations and then have the kids/parents choose which tracks.
It's the regressive social views way too Americans hold that are causing the problems, not people being who they are.

 

[Gravitational Force]

"The girls may not have access to as much stuff as Boy Scouts, but they do have access to a large amount."
Separate and not equal, got it.

"There are numerous issues with that that I have addressed, including, but not limited to, a substantial drop in membership, probable loss of many of backers, numerous policy and procedure changes, creating co-ed curriculum (and possibly awards) almost from scratch, moving every record from everyone and everything in both organizations (with one hundred years full of events and records on millions of youth and adults in each organization) into one cohesive and easily accessible database while continuing to maintain a relatively decent timeframe on paperwork and registration throughout the process, rewriting numerous policies on both ends, balancing the new budget (with a new, highly crippling budget loss to boot), etc. and this is aside from any potential problems down the road, such as said tent-happenings."
Same argument could be made for RACIALLY segregated scouts not being combined.

"I'd point out that "regressive social views" is an opinion, and can therefore be applied to any side relatively accurately in anything involving social views"
Regressive: "becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state." So once again not opinion in this case. You have a real problem with claiming that any facts going against you are opinions.