NJCubScouter

That would seem to be the perfect case for a full 2-year extension. As for your previous question about whether they stay in the troop while age 19 and 20, how is it handled NOW when a Scout is given an extension past his 18th birthday? I do not know the answer to that question. We had one Scout who was given until his 19th birthday to make Eagle due to severe physical disabilities. Until he made Eagle (which actually was 4 or 5 months before he turned 19) he was treated as a Scout for all purposes. Whether that was correct under National policy, I don’t know. And this was about 12 years

I think what it actually seems to say is that every extension may be a different length. I think it probably suggests that someone who turns 16 on Jan. 31 will get significantly LESS than the full 2 year extension. But we’ll find out.

I think the term “inaugural year” adds unnecessary confusion to the discussion. Females can join ScoutsBSA starting on Feb. 1, 2019. The first females to earn Eagle will earn it in 2020. Those are the facts.

I agree. It seems like the most limited and equitable “transition rule” they could have adopted, if they were going to adopt one at all.

Another Solomonic decision.

This thread is a merger of the one started by Scotteg83 here and the one started by Eagle1993 under Open Discussion. Eagle’s title has been used but Scott’s is the “surviving” thread. If that makes any sense.

Until I got to #3, I thought this was the worst decision in history. But both genders are being treated equally, so I guess it isn’t the worst decision in history. It actually seems like a Solomonic decision. I guess. On a more positive note, I think the decision not to recognize a “first female Eagle Scout”, and the stated reasoning, is perfect. That is what I was hoping they would do.

I suspect those first 10 minutes were spent thinking, "Hey, girls!" If it only takes 10 minutes for the "girls" to become "just Scouts," that bodes well for this thing being successful.

Not to me. And we'll take your word on their gender.

Possibly. My point is that they don't require that its members share such a belief. Any lawyer in particular? Maybe. I suppose it is clearer and simpler to say that you have a book right here that contains all of the moral lessons and requirements that mankind needs, handed down from on high. It is much more complicated and messy if you believe that morality is aggregate result of thousands of years of human interactions, but that's what I think. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what I believe. In fact, I believe all of us are accountable to each other

Imperfectly. Someone was questioning how this discussion relates to Scouting. One way it relates to Scouting is that Scouting does NOT require its members to believe that our moral code was dictated by a higher power. It merely requires a belief in a higher power. I for one believe that a supernatural force, beyond our comprehension, created the Universe and then probably retreated to the sidelines to watch the show - leaving the creatures on planets that eventually developed “intelligent” life to work out their own moral code(s) the best they could and try to survive in the process.

I suspect it will not come as a big surprise that I don't think you have answered my question.

But exactly what is the moral guideline at work here? What does it say? From where does it originate? What is their authority?

Well, yes, some people seem to think that, and I have had Jewish people tell me that Scouting is a Christian organization as a reason (excuse?) why their sons do not join. I tell them about the Schiff family and, less famously, my family. My father became a Boy Scout in 1938 in a troop sponsored by, of all things, a Jewish Community Center, in Bayonne, New Jersey. The first troop I was in as a Scout was about 30-40% Jewish, and the second was about 60% Jewish. So where this idea got started I have no idea, but it is a misconception that I have seen first-hand.

That is a suggestion I have made for real, in this forum. When the most recent made round of advancement requirement changes were made (2016?) I had an issue with turning "Scout" from the "joining badge" into a "rank" and doubling (or so) the number of requirements. I thought Scout should remain the "joining badge" and have requirements that could be finished at the Scout's second or third troop meeting. But with the number of requirements for each rank now, that would probably mean creating another rank, and I thought "Third Class" would make the most sense. Not that I think it is ever go

I wrote the religious reference letter for my son. Evidently it was sufficient.

It seems to me that the better analogy would be if your neighbor paid you the $40 for the privilege of cutting your lawn.

Just for myself, I have no plans to ever get involved at the district or council level. I have just seen too much "politics" at that level, and they don't seem to treat the volunteers very well, especially the newer ones. I believe that all of that would get in the way of whatever benefit I could provide. I suspect I am not the only unit Scouter who feels that way.,

Ha, ha?

It at least shows that they (at least in my council) recognize the issue and are trying to do something about it. Most likely it is not enough, but it is something. It depends on the content and quality of the training.

This whole thing, at the Boy-Scout-age level, is not going to work unless and until the parents and other relatives of the girls who want to join, including mothers and other female relatives, step up to plate to become SM's and ASM's for the girl troops. That is true regardless of whether it is a linked or standalone girls troop. (I have said that I would be happy to be on a "linked committee" and to serve as Advancement Chair for both troops. But I would not want our SM or ASM's to be involved with the other troop, beyond maybe one person to service as liaison between the "uniformed lead

Having seen some of the Scouts I have seen, I might consult with legal counsel first.

I am not sure what freedom of speech has to do with this. And I disagree with your premise anyway. Except for specific places like college campuses where the "safe space" movement has gone too far, speech is pretty free in this country. And in this forum. It is on the volunteers who choose to be involved. The BSA has made clear that a trans yonuth will be placed in a unit that will welcome them. When the BSA changed the policy, the 8 year old trans boy who had been rejected by his "home" pack was welcomed by a pack in a different town. You're talking to the wrong guy.

I don't think there was any way the BSA could have "stayed away" from this issue. It was not like National woke up one day and decided it wanted to let "trans males" join the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. (It never would have been an issue with Venturing anyway.) A boy (using his preferred identification) wanted to join the Cub Scouts, with the approval of his mother. Based on then-existing policy they were told he can't join because his birth certificate says he is female. Mom filed a complaint with the New Jersey (it's always New Jersey) Division on Civil Rights, they decided to go after t

i don’t see why this would be a surprise to anyone. PETA doesn’t believe ANY animal should be used for food by humans. They are entitled to advocate for their beliefs. Obviously they are not going to succeed in stopping people from fishing. Right at the moment their main activity (along with other groups) seems to be saving abandoned pets from drowning in the Carolinas, so thanks to them for that.