EmberMike

Every time this topic comes up, it's always about the bathrooms. It's not the bathrooms. Never was, never will be. Going co-ed will not hinge on whether all units have proper co-ed facilities. That's a minor detail in a much larger policy change. I hesitate to open this can of worms, but... Anyone else think there would be far more costly changes that need to be made? I can think of a few possibilities, starting with re-working every handbook. We'd be talking about the book that every single kid has, at every level, millions of books. And leader materials. And we're not just talking about changing the wording to be more gender-neutral. It's reshooting the photos in the books to show girls and boys, re-writing, editing, reprinting and distributing. Even though we pay for the books, there's still a huge cost involved in remaking the content of those books. And I'm not against co-ed. Just saying the bathroom argument is just plain silly. If anyone is really concerned about the cost involved in going co-ed, it's not the bathrooms you should really be worried about.

And this all goes back to my previous post, and the influences parents and kids hear from. "Want your kid to be a successful human? They need to do this, this, and this, get into a good 4-year college, graduate, get a nice office job, start a family, live happily ever after, blah blah blah." That's the story parents are still told today, even though it's false, and so parents still follow that checklist mentality to get their kids ready for applying to those prestigous 4-year colleges. The whole narrative is messed up, and until that changes, scouting (and everything else kids participate in) will continue to be viewed as something to be completed, as a list of things to check off on a longer list of things you need to do to make it beyond high school.

I often think that the unofficial mission of National on an individual employee basis is job security. When you've got more years left in your working life than the company you work for has left (based on membership decline rates), your motivation can quickly become one of self-preservation.

Scouting has fallen victim the same thing that a lot of extra-curricular activities have. It's a check-list item for college applications. And frankly I can't fault the parents all that much because they hear it from schools, guidance counselors, etc., that your kid needs to participate in X number of extra activities, clubs, sports, etc. Just getting that high school diploma isn't enough. And this goes back a while. I heard all the same stuff when I was in high school in the late 90s. I was wait-listed at the college I wanted to go to and only got accepted a month before I finished high school. I'm confident that having that Eagle rank was the difference between getting in or not. Parents want their kids to get that same kind of edge, where having another thing on the checklist can be make all the difference. Sure it goes against the intent of scouting to treat it as something to just get through. But unfurtunately that's the world we live in. Everything is super competitive, and it's harder than ever to treat every activity with the due respect and dedication that it deserves. I'm not defending this stance, just saying that I kind of get why we're faced with this issue so often. And that I don't think we can fault the parents all of the time when there are so many factors and influences involved that contribute to this kind of eagle-mill attitude towards scouting. Ultimately parents should still want their kids to be better people for having gone through scouting and done it the right way, not simply earning a rank and checking another college application checkbox. And that's a decision that every parent can make, if they choose to. But going down that path of treating scouting as a checkbox item doesn't always start with a parent. There are many outside influences in this.

It's not necessarily bad business if the business is already in sharp decline. It would be seen as a risky move, but when you can start to see the end of the line for scouting in America as we know it if the rate of decline doesn't change, taking risks becomes necessary to change direction. Of course one could argue that there are plenty of things the BSA could do outside of membership polciies to try and address the membership decline. And I'd certainly agree with that. But look at it from the National point of view. They've been throwing new programing, tech, STEM, SBR, etc., at the problem for years and it hasn't helped. Making changes that would have previously been viewed as risky or bad for business all of a sudden look a bit more appealing when your list of things to try is getting shorter and shorter.

I think it will hurt for a while too, but I don't think BSA has its head in the sand. In fact, I'd put my 2 cents on the idea that losses because of membership policy changes were entirely expected and part of some longer-term vision for the 21st century BSA and beyond. This is purely hypothetical, of course, but I think the BSA made these membership policy changes with the expectation that those who support the changes represent future of the organization. They placed their bet on a more progressive and inclusive BSA. We won't know if that's a winning or losing bet for a long time. The LDS news is just a small piece of a much longer story that will play out for years to come.

I'm trying to see the good in this, and there is certainly some to be had. At least from a marketing perspective there could be an interesting tie-in. People of all ages participate in these obstacle course races, including people with kids at (or approaching) scouting age. There's the potential for some sort of a "if you like OCRs, scouting provides kids the opportunity for high adventure activities too," messaging. Some of what kids do at Summit is certainly similar to things seen at these races. Minus the racing component of it, and with safety ropes.

I'm a millennial and I did everything you mentioned. I worked all through high school and college, paid my own way, never relied on anyone for help. For a forum of scouters I'm constantly surprised at just how often people here throw around over-generalizations and judge people by generational status, political affiliations, regional location, etc. This morning alone I've gone from one discussion telling me what my govt/social political values suggest I believe to what my age says about my work ethic.

So any topic in Issues and Politics can turn into a debate over government and/or social politics? I thought this was a scouting forum, and this section was about the issues and politics of scouting. I personally know plenty of liberals who favor a traditional back-to-basics scouting program that emphasizes outdoor skills and bushcraft. Government and social politics have no bearing on this subject.

It's really unnecessary to try and make this a political issue.

I think a traditional program would struggle even more than the modern program to keep kids interested, especially over the long stretch of time many kids are in this thing from 1st grade through high school. There's a traditional scouting program in the US. I'm not sure what kids think of it but their membership isn't exactly swelling these days.

At current rates of membership loss there won't be a BSA in 20 years. So I guess the co-ed approach might be the proverbial "hit it with a hammer" solution. Technically, logically, mathematically, going co-ed might not make sense. But when you're backed up against a wall and nothing else seems to work, just hitting it with a hammer as a last-ditch effort makes sense. If membership continues to decline at a rate that effectively puts the BSA out of business in a couple of decades, there's no reason anymore not to try that hammer. The only thing that will prevent the BSA from eventually going co-ed is if National figures out a way to fix the declining membership problem some other way. I think it's just a matter of how long they hold out on trying other things. They probably have a number in mind that, once membership drops below that number, the co-ed hammer comes out.

It doesn't have to go that far. I've been surprised to find that many units, and in particular many boys, don't know that it's optional or that they have a right to vote on it. Likewise I've also found that many units don't realize how broad their options are when it comes to neckers. One of my criticisms in my original post was that they are functionally useless in the standard BSA official shape and size. But really everyone is free to design and create neckers as they see fit, including larger ones, square shapes, etc. Not sure if it's just in my area, but the general sentiment seems to be that we use official BSA neckers or make custom ones according to the same exact standards. The idea that we can deviate from standard or not wear them at all is not common knowledge in some units. So instead of prohibiting them (which I would never suggest anyway), I think a sensible move from a National standpoint is to reiterate at both the adult and youth level what neckers are for and what the options are. If National does have an interest in reducing neckerchief usage (as I suspect from the almost nonexistent use of them by National leadership), this would be an opportunity to push that. If they want to maintain necker usage, or encourage it, this would also be a good opportunity to emphasize the various options available to units, and encourage everyone to get a little more creative with their choices. Obviously I don't like them. And I'd shed zero tears if they went away. But I also would have never even started this thread if I didn't think that there was some motivation at the higher levels to maybe get rid of them. And of course that's a purely speculative idea, but it's still just what I believe. When I look to National on any issue or topic, I look at their example. And in this case, their example is no necker. This isn't just about my opinion, it's about a trend I've noticed and I was curious what others thought. One other thing to consider, I originally suggested a reduction in necker wear for uniform use. I didn't say I wanted to to be banned and I didn't say anything about use out of uniform. Some folks have mentioned using them to identify their boys in areas where other groups are. Overseas this is a common practice and is often done with the necker alone, out of uniform. I have no problem with people using the necker however they want. I was posing the question more in terms of official use uniform wear, and whether or not the BSA is moving towards a reduced emphasis on this part of the uniform.

Which ones exactly? If the parent violated a law, that's fraud. But what specific law did she violate?

You're right, it is black and white. And printed in black and white in the state laws that gender identity is to be recognized. This is also assuming that the mother even checked a gender box on the form, or that she checked "male". Do we know for sure that she did either of those things? All I've read has indicated only that she informed pack leadership that Joe was born female. We also don't know if anyone in the pack advised her on how to complete the form and which (if any) box to check. This fraud allegation is being thrown around with very little evidence to go on. And again, even if she did check "male" on the form, in NJ it wouldn't be considered fraudulent if that is how the kid and his family identify him.

That's my theory anyway, based on how things seem to be going and the in-direct language we hear from National. Speculation, probably, but just what I'm reading in the tea leaves. There does seem to be a trend. Gay policy change, transgender policy change, co-ed STEM program, National's continuing mission to reach as many youth as possible, etc. One way to reach a whole lot more youth is to go fully co-ed. Or National has something else in mind to reach more boys and we're just not hearing about it.

Maybe this is a weird concern, but my first thought wasn't that the kids would swipe a drink but that an adult might. I'm also thinking of this from my own perspective and imagining this scenario with scouts and scouters I know, and I can't think of any kids I'd worry about around the bar. But there are a couple of adults from the past that I'd have concerns about. One being a recovering alcoholic. Seems like an all-around bad place, though. Who needs the stress/worry about something happening, or the liability if a bottle goes missing.

I'd be happy to respond to your questions, but I won't. Not as long as you don't even acknowledge that you've attributed things to me that I never said. I won't have a discussion with someone who makes up things and says that I said them.

But the things that have happened in the last few years have been done in accordance with the unofficial mission of BSA National, that being to reach more youth. It's much harder to go back the other way on any of these policy changes since that would effectively be counter to that mission and make the BSA more restrictive than it is today. They're never going to do that. I think it is a done deal in this case. I don't think National would view a reversal as simply just going back to how things were before. From where we stand today, a reversal in policy is a limiting of program accessibility and a reduction of availability to the largest number of youth possible, something that I cannot ever see National doing.

Ok. But we're not talking about butter or salmon. Were talking about gender identity, and the rules about that are pretty clear in the state in which this case took place. School laws in NJ are similar. The fraud suggestion just doesn't hold up.

I never said anything about "looking excessively gay, as if that's a bad thing." It's not about touching a nerve, you attributed words to me that I never said, and no paraphrasing of anything I've said would even lead to that kind of an interpretation. You're way out of line suggesting I said anything like that. Disagree with me all you want, but don't attribute words to me that I never said.

In New Jersey that's actually not how it works. Self-identifying gender is even allowed on a NJ drivers license. So in this case, in this state, yes indeed the gender is what Joe and his parents say it is.

I never said that. Please don't misquote me.

That's not at all what I said and I kindly ask that you re-read my original post. I mentioned the change in necker shape and size, hence the lost utility of it. The apparent lack of necker use at National, except for a few exceptions, which makes me wonder if the gears are already in motion to reduce the necker uniform policy further. I never said others shouldn't wear them if they want to, and in fact I'd fully expect that many people would continue to wear them even if National did officially cut them from the uniform. My "excuses" were logical and I posed the question of what others thought. Hardly "whiny", I thought.

Were the parents asked to provide a birth certificate? Was there anything in the application that stated that birth certificate gender must be indicated on the app?