gumbymaster

Pale Horse.  You just don't get it.  For your information this scout was attempting to discuss in detail HIS  "dudes he smashed" as you so colorfully have put it.  I am not sure where you participate in scouting at but I have never heard or witnessed any scouts speaking or heard any other scouts saying they have heard or discussed their activity.  So no you are wrong when you say it isn't a gay or straight issue.  In this case, it was a gay issue.  This is my son we are talking about and when my son says he is not comfortable around this type of behavior, I will remove my son from that situation.  It has nothing to do with not being accepting or tolerant.  This is in the best interest of my son and family.  Thank you!

Some 30+ years ago, when I was a scout youth, and the first person in our patrol/circle of friends managed to "go all the way" with his girlfriend ... Just like that scene in Grease, we were all "tell me more, tell me more".  It is unrealistic for us to expect that youth of that age won't (want to) talk about it, or that they will not be curious about it if others are talking.  It is a momentary lapse in "A Scout is Clean", but it is an age (but not scouting) appropriate discussion. 

It would also be unrealistic to expect that a gay youth member would also not be similarly inclined to "brag" about their conquests.

While a gay youth might be more inclined to keep quite about such things, it would be more out of a sense of peer pressure and non acceptance.  Which is the opposite of why a straight youth who might be inclined to keep such things between himself and his girlfriend, might be induced to join the locker room conversations. 

I do not take a position of if you think such behavior is right or wrong - in either case it is not appropriate for a scouting venue.

As an Adult leader, if I were aware of or overhead the discussion, in either case - because to do otherwise would be unfair - would be to remind the youth such discussions are inappropriate at a Scout function.  And while I would probably not extend this to a level of consequences, if I did in one case, I would also have to do so in the other case.

As said, it [the oversharing discussion] is not (should not be) a gay or straight issue; it is one of what is appropriate at a Scouting function and what is not.

Perhaps it is a little easier to see the value with the CSRT vs. the BSRT.

I view our role as many of the things you describe:

1. Place for training / educating leaders ... check

2. Place for networking with other leaders ... check

3. A place for finding out what is going on outside the unit (announcements) .... check

4. A place where troop leaders can reliably find the DE ... check

5. What is this recharter thing and what am I supposed to do ... check

6. A place for updating the scouters on various membership or requirements changes (that I first learn about here on this forum) ... check.

At the Cub Scout level, especially in May, June, August and September we are where the panicked new leaders go to understand what they just got drafted into doing, and how to do it.

We're also where leaders go if they have a problem and

(a) do not know how to solve it themselves

(b) lack the tools to solve it and need support or help

© have no idea who/what a unit commissioner is for helping them solve a problem,

etc.

Our Cub Scout Roundtable uses the model where we try to model elements of a pack meeting, and try to show the theme or the Scout law as a way to wrap around the meeting activities.  We're not perfect and the current CSRTC guide didn't help with the mismatch in themes and laws vs. the Pack Meeting Planners (we stuck with the Pack meeting planners).  I wish I could better emulate the advancement/ceremonies for our leaders to see a theme based meaningful awards ceremony, but we just don't do enough awards at RT (knots, etc.) to justify it.

We do try really hard to use interest and 'big rocks' topics that are relevant to the need of the units.  We mix breakouts and large group discussions, power points, and other presentation styles as the topic(s) and attendance allow.  I try to query the units about what topics would benefit them, but getting feedback is the usual and expected challenge.

As for the Boy Scout Roundtable ...

They have recently tried to do some more SPL Roundtables (3-4 a year), and when those work, it's really neat to see the youth leadership trading tips and tricks.

Even the topics at the regular adult RT sounds interesting - and I wish I could attend to learn more about them, but I'm busy running the other meeting.

Don't put too much stock in the Council records - especially for Summer Camp earned MBs.

I still have a large box in my basement with three years worth of summer camp Blue Cards (the Counselor's copy).

I kept them because (1) The Council at the time (early 90s) had no where to put them or record them; and (2) Many of our Summer Camp Counselors were transient (College Students, Military , etc) and most Scouts would not remember who the counselor was anyway*, just that they were earned at Summer Camp.  As the Program director, I felt obliged to protect them; at least Council usually knew how to track me down if it was an issue, and as a hoarder, I still haven't gotten rid of them.

* some long-time scouters who were counselors for the same merit badges outside of summer camp did get to keep their copies.

I expect the military model is a little at play here as well.

Since technically the COR can remove any other adult leader in the unit at an time for any reason (or no reason), it makes it difficult for a CM/SM to have a COR who is also an ACM/ASM because then technically your assistant is your boss - not a good work dynamic.

It sounds like an interesting challenge.

My first thought is that all of your leadership will need to be trained by both programs (CS & FG).  This may put an extra burden on the den and pack leaders they do not want or need.  The Alternative is to have a CS leader and a separate FG leader, and they could share the role of running activities, run separate activities for many things, or one could defer to the other's leadership, and be a leader in a CYA sense only.

In practice, Cub Scouts are already billed as a program for the whole family, so the only real change is that you have a formal structure, and that there is an awards/advancement option not available to "participating" siblings in the Cub Scouts.

I cannot find the thread at the moment, but there is another member on this board who runs a concurrent program for boys and girls from cubs through high school, using a mix of BSA, GSUSA and other programs to do so.  He would probably be a good person to reach out to, I'm sorry I do not recall the name at the moment - They had a fantastic group picture of all the units.

One program that I belonged to in my youth, was an Explorer post (pre Venturing) that also offered programs for pre-13 year olds and/or non-scouts, and for them, they were registered as Campfire youth, and then went on to participate like anyone else.  The program did not have an advancement component, so it may have been a little easier.  But I do not know the specifics of how to have the adult leadership properly qualified in such circumstances.  But they were able to run their program, and even rented BSA camps for a week to run it, so it must have passed someones scrutiny at the time.

Good luck.  Take lots of of notes on what does or does not work and the challenges you run into and how they are overcome.  And please share that with us.  It will be valuable for the rest of us someday.

There's definitely something to this idea. When I joined cub scouts as a kid in the late 1980s the percentage of scouts making it to Eagle was less than 2%. Now it's 6%. And the percentage rises despite falling overall membership numbers. The percentage shouldn't change that much no matter what is happening with overall membership. 

 

As they like to say in statistics (1) Correlation is not Causation and (2) By carefully choosing your statistics (and population) you can get them to say anything you want to say.

As to the first point, alternative (but not exhaustive) explanations could include:

(1) Although we are losing on bringing in general membership, we might be better at retaining current membership - leading to a higher number (%) of Eagles

(2) As the program membership shrinks, those that remain are more dedicated to the cause (both the boy and their families), again contributing to being in the program longer, contributing to a greater likelihood of achieving eagle

(3) If membership drops but the number of people earning eagle remains the same the % of those earning would increase.  I do not believe that the actual numbers bare this out, and I believe the the number of those earning eagle have increased year over year (but I do not have the reference at the moment), so this option could probably be dismissed.

(4) In a desperate attempt to stave off membership losses, we have made the prize jewel (the Eagle) easier to obtain.

My only real point is, that by itself we really cannot attribute how membership numbers and eagle numbers are or should be interrelated.

For a reference to the numbers themselves, in the Karate program my children are/did attend, they say (anecdotally) that about 10% of those who join the program make it to their black belt.  That is also a multi-year effort for similarly aged children to reach a milestone achievement.

I could sing it for you.   I know the tune.

I might even have guitar chords in my songbook, but unfortunately I have no clue on sheet music.  If I get some time, I'll try to poke on the piano to figure out what the notes are

@@RichardB I find the new section on Alcohol less clear.

 

The old GTSS clearly stated:

i.e. not allowed around scouts or on BSA property.

 

The new one says:

Which says alcohol is prohibited only when it's illegal or in violation of "any Scouting rules, regulations, and policies". But it doesn't say what the rules, regulations or policies about alcohol are. The Scouter Code of Conduct says basically the same thing.

 

I find this new GTSS section significantly more ambiguous than the old one.

 

How is the new one better than the old "no alcoholic beverages" statement?

I agree that it is not more clear than before, but I expect that the primary driver of the change was to remove the "no alcohol on Scout property" restriction, so that Summit would be able to rent itself out to other groups that did permit alcohol.

Local councils probably would also benefit by being able to host fundraisers (like at their nearby camp or a rented facility) more in-line with common business practices.

"White Stag" as the End of Scouting as We Know It.

 

As many know, the first Wood Badge course was all-Scoutcraft to First Calls level.  When the "Leadership Skills" from White Stag were inserted and Scoutcraft reduced, we heard the changes (about forty-five years ago) were "The End of Scouting as We Know It."   And we hear the same in the forum, over and over.

 

In turn, when the White Stag Skills were dropped from Wood Badge some fifteen years ago, that too was "The End of Scouting as We Know It."   

 

 

I know some mods have asked for this thread to stay more on topic and this is a tangent, but I feel compelled to speak out.

Disclaimers:

1. I was not an adult at the time of "Woodbadge for the 21st century" or whatever the "White Stag" incorporated version of Woodbadge was.

2. I am a graduate of and was youth staff for all three phases of youth leadership development as taught by the White Stag program (80's). (At least the Northern California one as founded by Betheny, et. al)

3. It is largely because of comments like these that while I will promote Woodbadge for other leaders looking for great training - I cannot bring myself to take the course.

The actual White Stag program never de-emphasized Scoutcraft.  If the Wood badge program got that from adopting White Stag's approach to the "Competencies of Leadership" then Woodbadge took home the wrong message.

I learned Scoutcraft really well in White Stag - I still use both the Scoutcraft I learned and those leadership competencies I learned nearly every day of my life.  In White Stag, "hurdles" are used to practice BOTH the scoutcraft skills needed to overcome the challenge AND the leadership skills needed to organize and conduct overcoming the challenge.  The two went hand in hand.

I have never understood the animosity of Woodbadge participants against White Stag but it seems to have persisted long after several subsequent evolutions of the Woodbadge program.

Are we now calling transgender a "Medical Issues"?  I read in earlier posts it is not a medical or psychological issue.  This is not an "allergy" or "physical disability".  This is a scout with the biological body of a female claiming on a membership form to be a male.  Again, you will never know and according to our District and Council per National, you are not allowed to ask.  I asked the same question, what do you do when you find out by looking over the medical form"  According to the new policy, that scout is to be treated based solely on what they put on that BSA application.  I agree, we as volunteer leaders need to know but according to the new policy, you will not and can not ask.  I also agree, I am not willing to put myself or family at risk over something I am not qualified to handle.  It appears this was poorly thought out and no one in "charge" thought about all the issues that could come about.  I think 10x the number of leaders and scouts will leave the program than what is brought in with this new policy.

I was not sure if you were indicating that I was calling TG a medical issue or if that was a general statement.  My intent with the statement was simply that I wanted to know about any kind of issue about any of the youth I serve if that issue has the potential to effect how I do my program or safety issues related to it.

I was an EMT, I develop medical devices for a career.  There are still inherent medical needs that a biological female may (TG male or not) need to be treated differently.  It is not about not treating them as a male as much as it is about providing appropriate medical care.  Thus I want (and feel like I need) to know if one of my youth are TG.  For any other aspect of the program, I am perfectly willing to treat them how they want to be treated.  If the parent's aren't good with that (after all I really do have what I think are the best interest of the child at heart) then I am not the right leader for their child and one of the two of us will not be moving on to the next round.

Even the statements from National in regards to finding a unit that best serves the child's needs identifies that not all units will be able to handle this - the reasons for that are are more than I could list with religious affiliations being only one; poor or insufficient leadership and/or not reasonable skilled in serving youth (we'll question later if that person should be a leader at all), etc.  We cannot find a unit that serves their needs if we don't know what those needs are.

Personally, as long as the parents were working with me, I think I could handle it as a leader, and I expect the units I am most closely associate with (none are church sponsored) would be welcoming (youth, adult leaders, and parents).

In cub scouts, we may not figure it out if we aren't told; but by Boy Scouts we'll probably know - told or not.

Unfortunately, I also think you are probably (very) low on the loss/replace ratio.

Getting back to the original question, my understanding is in alignment with Fred's.

A Closed unit may select "additional" criteria which must be satisfied by it's membership (i.e. member of x church, resident of the sponsoring HOA, etc.).  It is up to the BSA and the Chartering Org to determine what additional criteria are allowed or not (i.e exclusion based on race is probably not permitted) prior to the BSA (well local council) issuing a charter.

As most of the rest of this discussion seems to wrap around, a closed unit may not change the other mandatory BSA membership requirements.

As for a Charter School sponsoring?  It may vary state to state, but my belief is that if the charter school has a separate and distinct tax-id from that of the School District, then it is a separate legal entity (corporation, partnership, etc.), and may enter into any additionally permitted business operations - so that in addition to running the charter school, they would be able to sponsor a scout unit.

The best way to describe this is that the charter school corporation is then using it's "profits" to provide a charitable contribution in sponsoring the Scout unit.  Even a non-profit charter school could do this as the non-profit status does not mean not making money, it means that any excess funds are used for public good and not to enrich shareholders.

The last issue then is the facility itself.  If the Charter school (corporation) owns/leases it's own facilities, then it would be free to use those facilities as it sees fit (per the lease agreement if any).  If the charter organization is getting "rent-free" use of the pubic school facilities (i.e. maybe running a school in a school or similar), then the issue becomes a little more complex.

If the (public school) facility allows other groups to use the facilities, then those same rules would probably govern the charter school sponsored unit's use of those facilities.

Good luck with that.  Again, you have completely missed the point.  Go back and read the new policy.  You keep talking about a "Birth Certificate".  In all my years of scouting, I have never seen or had a birth certificate given to me.  If mom and dad put on that application that Jane is Johnny and never say a word to you, how will you ever know until something happens.  Oh and by the way, you are not allowed to ask.

As others have said, while we may not use and have a Birth certificate, we should have their medical forms.

I completely disagree with "you aren't allowed to ask". That's not the way we do things.

If a scout has an allergy - we need to know so we can take the appropriate precautions.  If a scout has medical issues, behavior issues, psychological issues - we need to know so that we can (1) Provide for the needs of the Scout, and (2) Take appropriate precautions or provide adequate supervision.

Even now, we are a volunteer organization (at the unit level), and If, as a volunteer, I could not adequately handle or address the needs of a scout, I would work with the parents to either (1) devise a mutually agreeable plan, (2) recommend another unit that may be better suited to meet those needs, or (3) respectfully 'retire' (at least from that unit), as I am unwilling to accept liability for attempting to manage something I do not feed comfortable and qualified to handle.  While I would like to think the last option would be unfortunate for everyone involved and some not directly involved, if I had intransigent parents to work with ... life is too short.

We still need to know about a TG youth, because they will have some issues that we will need to help manage for them to participate.  I don't want to treat them differently, but I do want to know how best to accommodate their needs, as I would with any other scout with needs.

As a Den leader, this is a harder problem than what I faced.

When I was chosen to be Cub Master, I had a serious discussion with my Son about what that meant as far as how he had to behave, because I could not stop the meeting for everyone else to deal with his misbehavior.

We also have a fairly good "it takes a village" mentality in our Pack, so I made it clear to other pack leaders that I would support their calling out my son, etc., just as they would for their own, or for other disruptive members of the den.

Still, I've had to leave him home with mom from a meeting twice.  Once, somewhere in Webelos 2 I think and once, even now that he is a Den chief.  Not so much for disruptive behavior during the meeting, but in my case where a pre-meeting tantrum was not over yet, and I just knew I could not deal with both the meeting and getting him calmed down in time.

It is a hard decision, and for a week or two they will resent you for excusing them from the meeting and still going yourself.  But if they enjoy the activities and miss their friends, they will learn, for at least that hour, as a leader you have to prioritize your responsibility as a leader.  Establishing that NOW, firmly, should lead to less continued problem with it in future years.

If your council has a university of scouting or pop wow training event, this exact topic is usually one of the courses covered, and I highly recommend your attending it.  There is also usually a course on managing den behavior in general.  If not, you may find your local roundtable a source of helpful support and ideas to help manage this (and other) challenges you face.

Sometimes, part of the problem is boredom.  Chances are your son sees you preparing the meeting, or maybe you're excited about your plan and talk with him about it, or seek out his feedback.  If he already knows what is coming, it is not new and exciting, and he may feel like he doesn't need to pay attention.  If this is the case, I suggest trying to keep him as in the dark about the activities as the other scouts - hard, but worth it.

Thank you for your service, and remember that within that disruptive behavior is also a lot of pride your son has in you for being the leader.

I hadn't really given this much thought. 

I don't really know when they start putting our the call for volunteers for this; I haven't heard anything yet from either National or NCAC.  I guess they are still caught up in getting the National 2017 Jamboree together.

Being near DC, and about 5 hours from the Jamboree site, and having a fairly large house with a lot of pull-out couches, I'd probably be glad to host several scouts.  No restrictions on gender or gender identity here.  Language may be a different issue, we can probably cover German and French reasonably (but I expect a lot of them also learn English); but I'm willing to try with others - Google translate seems to work pretty well these days.

I would have to disagree.  I would love to look like a model or have the ability to fly but it's never going to happen.  I can't just decide that I feel like I can fly and then jump off a building and have it be true.  Sorry, life doesn't work that way.  I have no problem with people who decide they want to be a different gender or race or animal (Yes, that happens) but don't force that on others.  Just because they want to be a boy doesn't mean that they are.  And it sure as heck doesn't mean that others need to accept that.  I would never force myself into a group that I don't belong in just because I want to be in it.

@@krypton_son,

Judging from some of your other posts, you seem to be one of the most laid back, non judgemental, and open minded people on this forum.  But I feel a need to disagree with you on this one.

For Everyone ...

Let us start with the premise that (as many here believe):

1. God has a hand in each of his creations, and that we are the way God wanted us to be

There is no denying that the TG boys (in this case) are born with Female genitalia (genetic female).  For many, that should end the discussion, but bare with me ...

In the case of many (but not all) TG, the body is actually producing the wrong hormones, think producing testosterone instead of estrogen, etc. (biologically male-leaning).  This is not something that the individual chose - they were made that way; and very few would willingly choose this for themselves.  They believe that they are male because everything inside of their body, except the genitalia and other (some but not all) pubescent developments, are telling them that they are male.

Medical science can't really fix (reverse) the problem, and no amount of "choosing" will change them.  Medicine can help complete the process.

Some may then believe that God has chosen this as a trial for this individual to overcome (i.e. Job), and that giving into the feelings/gender disphoria is a failure of the individual to reach God's expectations.  I don't believe this, but there are those here that will.

Even if this is the case, that leads to:

2. Punishment is for God to decide (i.e. Heaven vs. Hell), not mortal man. 

As such, we should not be heaping extra challenges on these already over burdened individuals.  We should be, to use the term, "Christian", and be kind and understanding to their plight.  To help them where we can.  It is not our role to stone them and speed them on their way to God's judgement.

We should always be Courteous, Kind, and Helpful to those that need help, support, and understanding.  This doesn't mean we have to agree with it; but following our oath and law is not condoning the behavior (if you believe that it is behavior), it is being true to what we want to represent.

---

OK, maybe we hold a position of "I don't care what you want to be, .... as long as I don't have to be exposed to it."  As the Dale case affirmed, as a private organization we have the right of association, and CAN choose to not associate with those who are different from us ... for what ever reason, their race, their language, their national origin, their gender, their religion, their sexuality, their age, their politics, their socioeconomic level, their intelligence, etc.

Sometimes there are some very valid reasons for the choice

1. We want to be boy scouts because we believe that boys will better develop in an environment catered to their needs, and not to a co-educational mean.  ok.

2. We want boys to have a spiritual or religious center, because we believe that that will be most in-line with the values we are trying to build or develop. ok  We could be more specific about religious beliefs, but we have chosen not to.

3. We have (as a movement, not as individuals) chosen not to discriminate on the other points because either (a) continuing to do so would be more of a distraction than a help in achieving our goals; (b) the societal consequences of doing so would put too much risk on our ability to provide any program; © they are part of the collective group we want to associate with; and/or (d) it was just the right thing to do.

A Scout is Clean - A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.

Do we really believe that those we are choosing (or would like to choose) not to associate with do not have high standards?  Otherwise, our oath or law doesn't really provide a reason not to.

----

Is this a good decision for TG boys; absolutely.  It is one less stone thrown at them, and possibly even the start of a helping hand.  They believe they are boys, wish to live as a boy, which means that they will eventually become men; and we can help them to become good men.

Is this a good decision for the BSA: probably not.  Members who individually choose not to associate will leave.  As others have stated, it will not bring in new sponsors, it will not bring in great numbers of new members (the total TG population effected is very small; PC parents who previously used this as an excuse why they could not support us will find a new reason) certainly not enough of either to offset the likely losses.  It does reduce more damage to our external reputation, but at the cost of damage to the internal reputation of the trustworthiness of the BSA organization to stand up for the values of the majority of its membership.

A Scout is Trustworthy. 

A Scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him.

And clearly, the BSA administration is making it very difficult for the membership to depend on them - at least as far as knowing or participating in major decisions that effect everyone in the movement.

The BSA was in a no win situation here, as we have been, and will continue to be.

A Scout is Brave - A Scout can face danger although he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at him or threaten him.

Was the organization brave because even against the ire of current members they did what was right? or

did the organization fail to be brave by not standing up for their beliefs and give into external pressure.

We are a diverse group and I doubt there can ever be consensus on this.

But in the end, while many of you will disagree, and I respect that, I think it was the right decision.

Actually, I believe that magnets are explicitly banned in the Pinewood Derby cars (per our district rules) for just such a reason.

I believe that it is one-point twenty-one gigawatts.

Finish the race before you start

I did, for my Son's first B&G - of course I was shortly thereafter drafted to become the new cubmaster .

I believe that we have a unit in our district chartered to a plumbing supply store, but don't hold me to that, I've never seen the papers.

Keep in mind that when they indicate units chartered, this is not only Troops and Packs, but also Posts, Crews, and (do they still use?) Teams.

For some businesses, they might charter an on-topic, career/vocational focused, post/crew and there are several ways beyond just goodwill that this could help their bottom line.  For example, if they commonly use summer interns (or young adult hires when they reach maturity), this would be a great way to check out and train potential candidates before you have to hire them.

Or maybe a camping/outdoor/sports supply store wants to drum up business, a high adventure (or similar) crew that runs lots of "recruiting events" that are open to the public would likely increase their overall bottom line, at least compared to the actual cost of sponsoring the crew.

While I can understand the sentiment, please do not let the actions of a rogue troop color your opinion of all the BSA.

The BSA is made of a diverse group, as you should be able to tell through the differing opinions on the wide range of subjects of these forums.  We are people, and people make mistakes.  People can also rise to the occasion.  For most of the Scouters out there, we really want to help the youth grow into the best possible person they can become.

With a signed book, unless every member of that board of review is willing to lie and say their signature was forged, you should be able to move into the new unit with the presumption of the award.  The Boy Scout book is also a valid record and proof - regardless of what is or is not entered into the BSA advancement database.

If the new unit is not comfortable putting in the advancement record based on the other troop's signatures, while regrettable, that is also understandable - they really do not know what is going on here.  If you know anyone at the district level, talk with them.  A unit commissioner for either the new or old unit would be ideal, the district advancement chair may also be a good choice.  They may have the ability to record the advancement in your son's official record directly - once they understand the situation.

Normally I try not to throw gasoline onto the campfire but for some reason I think I'd like to voice in here.

Also understand that I am not trying to project my opinion of what to do here, because I honestly haven't fully made up my mind on the subject.

100 years ago when the boy scouts were founded, no one would have thought that the definition of boy was in doubt.  Everyone knew what a boy was and that was that.

For most people in our program, I think we fairly clearly mean genetically a boy (X&Y chromosome, I deliberately do not use biologically, for reasons I'll get to later).

The Society around us, for better or worse, worked to change the definition of boy.  The society definition of a boy has become more hazy as both social activists and medical practitioners have expanded that definition to those that identify as a boy.

Separate definitions to those, but usually less relevant to youth ages are those who may be legally male or present (i.e. post-surgery) as male (regardless of birth genetics).

Clearly this subject makes many uncomfortable, and probably with good reason.  We like doing the right thing, but what is right is no longer quite so clear cut.

Some recently published studies have shown that there is a significant number of trans-gendered youth whom have clearly established gender identities by as young as age three with fewer than 10 percent reverting back to identify as their genetic gender by adulthood.  There is some very real science to indicate that this gender identity is truly biologic (this why I do not use the term biologically male, etc.) in the chemistry of their brain and the hormones their body produces.  I distinguish this from those who psychologically identify as their non-genetic gender - but that too doesn't necessarily mean it is a "choice" on the part of the individual.

http://www.healthofchildren.com/G-H/Gender-Identity.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904453/

We in the BSA really just shouldn't think that it is safe for us to say we are Boy scouts, and only Boys are allowed to join (if that is in fact our intent).  While it is rare for youth to undergo a genetic reassignment surgery, it is not unheard of, particularly in cases of intersex/hermaphrodite individuals. 

For Passports and some state birth certificates or drivers licenses, proof of a surgical reassignment is no longer required, it is sufficient to demonstrate "appropriate clinical treatment".  Other states don't let the change be officially recorded even after a reassignment surgery.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-identity-document-faq

My only real point is that if the BSA is only for genetically male youth, then our rules and/or charter should probably be changed to reflect that, otherwise we are far more likely to be put into the society definition of gender - which may not even be that individual's legal much less genetic gender status.

This also creates an issue with potential leadership.  While a CO can select their own leadership; would a trans-gender leader be excluded?  Probably not since we accept both male and female leaders.

And further, what about a genetic male who identifies as a female (girl) wanting to join as a youth, since we don't allow girls either?

I'd say we were on a slippery slope, but the reality is that we're already rolling down the hill at full speed, the only real question will be how broken we are when we finally reach the bottom.

From the perspective of Youth Protection, you will be an adult.  Your camping must be with the unit Adults and the no one-on-one rule will apply, so when hanging out with a friend at camp, make sure there is a third person with you or within easy eyesight.

As for what you do, and with your friends or not; that is more in line with what the camp rules are, but in most cases it should not be a problem (although if an activity has limited "slots", those are often allocated to youth members before adults).

On the plus side, your summer camp fees will probably be less, and you will help the troop make their adult-to-youth camping ratios (if the camp uses them).  You may even like being an adult leader overseeing the troop operations at camp.

As for how you are registered, your could register as either an ASM or as a "College Reserve Scouter".

http://www.scouting.org/Training/TrainingUpdates/Archives/201111.aspx

Either way, you will need to submit a new application (your prior membership fee as a youth should still cover your cost), and you will need to complete the Youth Protection Training (an on-line course that takes about 30 minutes).

Seeing the difference in Scouts from day 1 of Summer Camp (I miss my...) to day 6 of Summer Camp (this place is cool!)

 

My son was like that.  At our first residence cub camp.  The first night he wanted to go home, and I talked him into staying "just for the night", then we could go home if he still wanted to. 

"There's a 75% chance I want to go home tomorrow morning then", he said.

"After breakfast, when asked what he wanted to do, it was

"There's a 50% chance I want to go home after dinner"

By the end of the three night/four day camp

"There's a 100% chance I am coming back next year."