NJCubScouter

Already done, at least as far as the military is concerned. Eagle and GUSUA Gold will get you the same step-up when enlisting in the U.S. military, see: https://www.thebalance.com/advanced-paygrade-rank-enlistment-programs-3344738 This is a non-official site, but it is consistent with what I have seen on official U.S. military sites. The highest awards in Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are treated equally in this context.

I think that's ridiculous. What I see is a few girls who want to join the Boy Scouts. I think that's great. Someone wants to join the Boy Scouts! We must be doing something right. If it were a failing institution as some in this forum seem to believe, why would anybody be banging at the doors to get in? That does not necessarily mean I think they should be let in. As I have said in prior discussions of this issue, my preference would be for the boys* to be in the Boy Scouts (and Cub Scouts) and the girls* to be in the Girl Scouts. (*As defined by the current policies of both organizations.) I do think there would be undue disruption to the programs if they were suddenly made co-ed, particularly the Boy Scouts. As I have said before, what I have observed in my troop is that on those rare occasions when an older teenage sister or two visits a troop meeting, at least half the boys turn into... I'm not even sure what word to use. They become completely useless, let's put it that way. (I'm sure I was the same way at that age.) I shudder to think what the constant presence of girls would turn them into. Maybe this could be dealt with over a period of time, but I am still swayed by the fact that there is an equivalent organization (at least, potentially equivalent) for girls. As for the rank of Eagle, I do not recall this being a big issue before this one girl from New York. I suppose the Eagle rank does have somewhat more prestige than the Gold Award. Maybe the BSA and GSUSA should team up on an informational campaign to make everyone realize that the two are equivalent (assuming that they are, I don't really know; my daughters got to the 7th and 2nd grades, respectively, before dropping out of Girl Scouts.) On the other hand, as I have also said before, I am not opposed to girls earning Eagle, if a way can be found for them to do the Scout-1st Class requirements in a way that does not disrupt the current Boy Scouting program. Ah, the tough life of a moderate - I have given all sides something to throw stones at.

I like that movie too, enough to know that that line is spoken by the villain, who is a psychotic murderer who "gets his" at the end. Is that really who you want to be quoting? (Or actually misquoting, it's "super", not "special".)

Qwazse, for some reason I had the impression from past discussions that you supported making Boy Scouts and/or Cub Scouts co-ed. Is that incorrect?

At least I got a smile out of that one. I am fairly certain that the GSUSA would not "so wish".

It's just rhetoric. (I think you know that.) Overall, when I read this thing, I am of two minds. I agree with the basic theme of what he is saying. But I also have no interest in what he is "tired" of, even if I am tired of some of it too. Stop whining and do your job, Scout Executive of the Mecklenburg County Council. If you can't stand the heat, get away from the campfire. Or something like that.

Unfortunately I have heard the same thing from several district-level volunteers. The problem seems to emanate from the council. A related problem is the "clique" of "district guys" who seem to spend as much time currying favor with the professional hierarchy, and with each other, as they do actually accomplishing anything. These are the main reasons I have never volunteered for anything above the unit level. (I have DONE some things at the district level, mainly doing some training at day-long training events where they need a sub, and this is where I have had a lot of my experience with the "clique" types. I seem to have dropped off the "sub call list", which is fine with me.)

Well, those among them that believe that transgender is a "real thing" shouldn't have a problem with it, since it would follow that all Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are "boys" regardless of what their birth certificates say. (That doesn't count the non-transgender girls that have apparently been admitted to Cub Scout packs either as a so-called pilot program or under LFL or by local units breaking the rules, etc.) For those among them that think that "trans boys" are just girls in disguise, or something, it would be a different story. Does anybody besides me find the terminology very awkward when discussing this subject? I mean the whole boy/girl thing has gotten kind of confusing in this thread. And I find that in the preceding paragraph, I used the term "non-transgender", which is a term that probably does not exist. Out there on the rest of the Internet I have seen a term "cisgender" (or "cis") which is used (largely by transgender people and those who are more into new words than I am) to describe those of us whose birth certificates match our gender identity, or what I just called "non-transgender". In other words 99.7 percent of people. But I don't really think that terminology is widely understood in this forum or that people here (including myself) really want to use it.

When you refer to a "female" who is "transgender", in this situation you are referring to a child whose birth certificate says they are a girl but who is now "living as a boy", and whose membership application (signed by their parents) says they are a boy, right? The BSA now regards that person as a boy. Many in our society regard him as a boy, though many others regard him as a girl. So I suppose anything the BSA does in this area is going to cause a PR problem with somebody.

Was that the official roundtable topic? Sounds like a waste of a roundtable to me.

Stosh, do you think the BSA is a "sinking ship"? And if so, who are the "rats", exactly?

Eagle94-A1, there are several documents at that link. I take it you are responding to the FAQ from the BSA (which I had not seen before although it seems to track closely with the language of the statement that I linked-to on the first page of this thread) and not the statement from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting. Right? I don't think the NCCS said anything about coed units.

Sounds great as long as you are not located in the Atlanta area.

This thread has been split off from "Closed Unit". Let's please try to stay reasonably on-topic. There's no charge for starting new threads.

Moderator's Note: I think ghjim has raised an important topic, which deserves its own discussion, and I was thinking of responding, mainly because I don't think some of the responses address some new developments in the area, mainly the new "duty to God" advancement requirement. However, it is not really on-topic with CO's limiting their membership, which is also an important subject. Therefore, I am thinking of splitting off posts #21 through #25 into a separate topic, which I would have to figure out a good title for. Unless anyone has any strong objections. The new thread would still be in Issues and Politics. It would not include the last three posts before this one, which are part of the original topic relating to CO's (although somewhat loosely, in the case of Sentinel's and my latest posts.) Update: I am going to do this now (approx. 3 pm Eastern time) before this thread gets even more tangled up. I am going to leave this post here to explain what happened to the posts that are moving. They will be under the title "Religious groups and individual beliefs" unless I think of a better one in the next few seconds.

Heh heh. I wasn't being too subtle, was I?

Thanks RichardB.

I never heard of one either, but I looked at our council's web site and there is one, or at least there is a web page for one. Except it isn't called the Conservation Committee anymore, it is now called the Sustainability Committee. (I can tell it is just a name change because the page for the Sustainability Committee has a logo for the committee, but the logo still says "Conservation Committee" with the name of the council. So it would be fair to guess that the name change took place fairly recently. The page also mentions the "sustainability program (formerly known as the conservation program).") The committee's web page has sections on Leave No Trace, Conservation Good Turns, the Hornaday Awards and the World Conservation Award. It does not have anything very specific about what the council committee itself actually does nor does it indicate the makeup of the committee. It does have an email link for the committee chair to get further information.

David, I am sure you are not analogizing an 8-year-old child who wants to be a Cub Scout, to Satan, so I won't address that further. Doesn't make any difference to me anyway, since I don't believe in Satan.

He's not talking about STEM. The original poster was talking about an alleged co-ed Cub Scout pack, announced as a "pilot program" by someone from "district". (Later edit: In the previous sentence, "announced" should be "allegedly announced". I am not taking anything for granted here.)

Everything's fine. I wasn't pointing fingers at anybody.

Oh no, are Stosh and I agreeing with each other again? Can someone please check to make sure the Earth has not fallen off its axis? I would hate to suddenly go shooting off into space or something, at least not without being prepared.

I love that term "special interest group". It means a group that supports something that the "speaker" opposes. A group that supports what the speaker supports is always a "grass roots movement" or something like that. Anyway, "lawyers and special interest groups" actually got involved in trying the change the BSA's policy toward openly gay members around 1980. There was that suit in California that got shot down in the state courts, before there was the Dale case in which the BSA lost in the New Jersey Appellate Division and Supreme Court before squeaking out a 5-4 win in the US Supreme Court, around 2000-01. Then the BSA staunchly defended the policy against all efforts at change, including from several councils, until 2015. (I count 2013 as more of a clarification regarding youth members, the real change was in 2015.) So, right, the BSA caved right in - after "only" 35 years. It is true that the change in policy on transgendered males took a lot less time. As I have said before, I think the main reason for that was that the National leadership looked at the 35 years of fighting (internally and externally) on the gay issue, including the lawsuits, the internal dissension, the loss in public support in some parts of the country, etc. etc., and they wisely decided, Let's not do that again. Or, to paraphrase old King Pyrrhus, one more victory like this and we're finished.

Well, sticking with the context of who is in your troop, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. Certainly not the BSA. They say they are going to find a troop for Hypothetical Transgender Boy X that is in his best interest. The last troop that would be is yours.

I think they were the beneficiaries of a bad call. I don't think that receiver had control of the ball before it touched the ground in the fourth quarter. Even more significantly, my wife agreed with me. Or to be technical about it, I agreed with her. It always seems to work out that way.