HelpfulTracks

Now that I have read through the entire thread I have a question for some of you......When did God die and put you in charge of determing the legitimacy of his creations?

Just curious, but to which position in the debate is this question posed?

At the end of the day the Unit leader must sign off on those put up for election to the OA. So if the Unit leader refuses to sign off he can effectively ban the election.

However, I do not believe that doing so follows the ScoutnOath and Law. By refusing to sign off the Unit leader is in effect saying that none of his scouts meet the requirements. Since the only subjective requirements are if the Scout in question meets the the Scout spirit and adherence to Oath and Law requirements, he is in effect saying that he scouts do not (assuming they meet rank and camping requirements).

If he truly believes that to be the case I would question his effectiveness as a Unit leader. If none of his scouts adhere to the Oath and Law and do not show Scout spirit, he isn't doing a very good job as a Unit leader.

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

I do believe that one is not to wear the MB sash while wearing the OA sash.  With Boy Scout Sunday being a non-OA event, I'd go with the MB sash.

True and agreed.

That's how it supposed to work. Congrats!

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

I if you are serving in an OA capacity hen wear it, if not I would say no. 

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/01/27/ask-the-expert-when-should-scouts-and-scouters-wear-their-oa-sash/

You could have just as easily asked, what did they have to gain by letting "Colored kids" go to schools with white kids?  I'd say they have the gained the moral high ground by doing the right thing. 

 

I believe now, just as then, you're on the wrong side by believing either decision is the wrong move.

His moral perspective differs from yours, so he is wrong?

Whether it is or isn't effecting membership numbers is separate from the idea that it was a change that didn't have significant support within the BSA. It did have significant support. Whether it was a good idea or not is a different argument.

Significant support with in BSA? There is a difference between support and acquiescence. I personally think the changes in '13 and '15 were logical changes, because the "sin" and "moral" issues were shaky ground (that is for another thread) and did not oppose them. But I am in fact aware of only a small percentage that outright supported the changes. I am aware of far more that opposed them. 

I getting really tired of this type of argument.......

 

Please understand that the BSA is not "owned" by the conservatives. That it has to make room for all. 

 

And I think that was the trigger for all this. By telling this particular youth "no" on membership, National had suddenly created a de-facto policy on TG youth. And National responded by having an actual, thought out (well one hopes it was thought out - but this is National) policy instead of an accidental one. Which I think was the right thing to do.

 And they are people who are tired of the argument that BSA "has to make room for all." It presumes that others perspectives are somehow invalid. 

Think about that statement for a minute. Is there no group that you would be opposed to BSA granting a charter or a commission?

Some, perhaps many, there is the concern that goal for total inclusiveness means there is NO line in the sand for standards.

I am certain there is some scenario that everyone will draw a line and say, no, that is not acceptable. Thus that line varies from individual to individual. 

But when a group continually hears their perspective (where they draw the line) is invalid, bigoted, mean spirited, wrong etc. is that inclusive? Is there room for them?

That is particularly true when the organization they joined has a long standing history matching their value system, such as BSA. Changes in that value system can cause them to have concerns, and dismissing those concerns certainly does not feel inclusive to them. 

BSA did not suddenly create a "de facto policy. There policy has always been Boy Scout membership for youth has always been for boys only. The change has come with the flexible, and historically very recent, perception of of what defines a boy. That is not on BSA, their policy is unchanged, society, or at least a portion of it has changed that definition, and not everyone agrees with that change. To tell them their perception is invalid hardly feels inclusive.  

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

@@Stosh, if the Boy Scout's identified gender of male is different than what is listed on their birth certificate, I think it is required to have a female adult along on the trip.  If the gender listed is the same based on state law, no female adult is required.  First problem solved.

 

........

 

I can and do understand objections to the decision based on someone's religious, moral, political and scientific views, but I think that arguing the practicalities of implemeting the decision are red herrings.  

First, the birth certificate no longer matters. That is the crux of the policy change. BSA will regard the youth's gender as the gender the parent marks on the application. 

Second, arguing the "practicalities of implementing the decisions" is not a red herring. There are potential and real legal impacts to every decision. It is prudent to discuss and understand those implications, regardless of where one's stance on the issue falls. "Be Prepared" is not just as motto, it is how we should conduct ourselves. Understanding how this and other decisions impact BSA, our councils, troops and CO's is important, not completely understood at this point and frankly the only way to come close to "Being Prepared."

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

Things seemed to have picked up in my area. Winter banquet was packed, many crossovers and elections going on. The calendar is packed with conclave, fellowships, ordeals and celebrations. There is talk of a big camping outing for Cubs put on by the lodge this year and tons of service projects.

I think it is cyclic and varies by area though. Some years are just better than others. 

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

If boys are leading shouldn't everyone else be following?  People who guide and direct are setting the path to follow that means they are the one's leading.  A lot of scouters are great backseat drivers thinking that just because they aren't touching the wheel that they aren't the ones requiring that others follow them. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/books/review/the-gift-of-failure-by-jessica-lahey.html

“The Scoutmaster guides the boy in the spirit of an older brother.†- Baden-Powell

To me to guide and direct are to very different things. Guides advise, mentor and act as role models for how things should be done. They are not the ones making the decisions. 

@@HelpfulTracks As a UC I also face the same denial issues in our neck of the woods.  After many, many, many years I have never heard a SM tell me the reason the older boys are leaving is because he's/she's running a poor program for them.  I hear about the fumes, the sports, the jobs, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.  One day before I die I would love to have a SM tell me he/she is overwhelmed by the older boys, their need for ever increasing demands for more and more adventure, that they don't want to babysit 6th graders anymore but want to experience a scout opportunity they have been working on for the past 5 years, what can I do to help these boys???

 

Nope, never gonna hear that one.

 

Instead all I hear is how excuses absolve the SM's from having to step up and help the older boys with the same energy and determination they do with the younger boys.  110 miles on a Philmont or A/T hike?  250 miles of canoeing on the Yukon?  RAGBRAI? one of the days is always 100+ miles!!!  They look at me like I've lost my mind. 

 

I don't know if it's true or not but someone said that the first people to walk the A/T, even before it was completed was 4 Boy Scouts?  Or the 1936 World Jamboree where some Argentinian Scouts walked from Argentina to the US to participate?  Or "back in the day" when summer camp was summer camp, all summer long! 

 

I can see where girls may be a higher priority later on in the teen years.  Sports will always draw a few and cars can and often do drive the roads to campgrounds.  A job?  How can a job be a higher priority than scouts?  I held a job all the way through my scouting experience, made a lot of money and paid for my scout experience without ever competing with it. 

 

But alas, my troop was totally ill-equipped to handle older boys, I never knew of a boy who ever eagled in that troop.  So after 4 years of going nowhere (I was a 2nd Class scout), Civil Air Patrol, functional radio operation and navigation opportunities along with the potential of a glider's license came along, my buddies and I exited the program.  Girls were still there (it was co-ed), still got my driver's license, and still held down a job. 

 

It might do well to really find out why boys are leaving your troop's program instead of simply offering up speculative excuses that seem plausible to those around you.

Ha Ha - I forgot about having a job back then. But that was only something I did so I could do the things I wanted to do! That and my father made sure I worked to understand the value of an education. He made sure I worked by requiring me to pay for those High Adventure Trips and Jamboree. 

You are correct, finding out why Scouts leave the program is critical. Sometimes it is for reason we choose to believe, such as the 3 G's, as often as not, or perhaps more often, it's because the program isn't meeting their needs. 

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

@Helpful Tracks - that post was very...helpful!  Thanks for taking the time to write.

My pleasure!

 

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.

@@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.

Not to nit pick, but I will a little 

Both male and female produce the hormones estrogen and androgen (testosterone being an androgen). But they are in very different amounts for the sexes. So the body isn't producing the wrong hormone, perhaps, in some cases, production out of balance for their chromosomes. 

Second - medicine can and does have ways for correcting imbalances. In fact in most TG instances I am aware of, hormone treatment is used to create an imbalance. i.e. males transitioning get estrogen treatment and vice versa. 

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

Amen!

"Is this a good decision for TG boys; absolutely." 

Is teaching character, citizenship, fitness, leadership and the principals of the Scout Oath and Law a good thing? No, it is a great thing, regardless of sex, gender identity, race, religion, national origin etc. 

But we are not just talking about teaching. We are talking about how we handle a sensitive subject. Is it a good idea to support TG from a psychological perspective? I am no expert so I can not say definitively. 

I tend to defer to experts in areas I am not as familiar with, and this is one of those. But when I research the topic there is a wide range of thoughts about how to handle TG. I am not talking about intersex, where there is a biological discrepancy, but rather TG.

Some experts liken the conditions to other psychological conditions such as anorexia, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder in that the brain experiencing something different from reality. My understanding all of these things can be caused by various chemical, environment, social factors (and more). Others believe it is more helpful to embrace the gender you believe you are rather what your DNA says. 

So is reinforcing a belief that is counter to scientific evidence a good thing? My gut says no, but I am still studying this and trying to come to grips with it, so I will refrain from judgement for now.

But it is a question worth asking. 

Your whole post is excellent - I just picked this out because this is one of the big things bothering me (the other YPT issues).  WHAT THE CRAP IS WRONG WITH THE GIRL SCOUTS?????  They go camping, etc. and every time I speak with a Girl Scout leader I walk away impressed!  The GS is a great organization!!!!  So I guess - why would the BSA need to start a parallel org for girls ... let alone why does the BSA need to change to include girls???  

 

I keep thinking that this is the road we are going down - becoming a co-ed organization.  And many of the leaders I talk with think the same way.  HOWEVER - if BSA becomes co-ed, what will become of the GS organization?  Don't you think they would fight this decision?  Just curious.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Girl Scouts. But it is not for everyone, neither is Boy Scouts. But GS is structurally and programmatically different from Boy Scouts, that has pluses and minuses.

My daughter looked at several GS Troops. Most did not fit what she was looking for. I would say our experience with GS has been that they are more like Explorer Post or focused Venturing Crews, they have a theme they stick with. I know that is not always true, but it has been what we have experienced.

She looks at what my son does with Scouting, a more varied program from month to month (for example a six month stint in our program (snow sports one month, horsemanship the next, archery, wilderness survival, rifle & shotgun and water sports in successive months) and that is what she would like. 

It has also been difficult at times. She found a troop that was into horseback riding, which she was all about. But due to limited resources (enough horses) the troop wasn't taking in new Girl Scouts. IN at least 2 instances she found friends at school in GS and her friends were excited about doing some of the things she wanted to do, but the mothers who ran the troop were not. I volunteered to help in both cases and was politely told "no thank you." She eventually gave up on GS, but cannot wait for Venturing. We go camping and other activities together, but it is not the same as doing so with a large group of friends, like my son does with Boy Scouts. 

That is why I would love to see a BSA parallel for girls. 

As for what would happen to GS? I think it might have some impact, but again the two organizations are very different, I certainly do not think it would be the demise of GS USA

I hear the term regularly. Most often attached to the question how to prevent it, and/or with a tone of disappointment.

As a UC my usual reply is a question. Why do you think it is happening. I am given all kinds of reasons, most having nothing to do with the program, which is usually very much the issue. 

 I have been am ASM with my troop for about a year and a half. All of the Eagles we have had in that time have Eagled just as they turn 18. I am the advisor for our older patrol and several of them, if they get their Eagle, will do so this coming year close to aging out.  The good thing is they are staying with the program. I would love to see the get their Eagle sooner and stay around as examples and mentors. 

But I tell them and their parents, it is not my goal to get them to Eagle. My goal is the Aims of Scouting and helping them achieve their goals. Getting Eagle should not be my goal or even their parents. It should be theirs if they choose. I discourage the "Wheels for Wings" concept and other such inducements. I do offer guidance, mentoring and any help I can provide for them to achieve their goals, and if Eagle is one of them great! They have my full support and any assistance I can provide. 

Those that "Eagle Out" long before their 18th birthday can be a sign of a program that does not meet their needs. But no always. I just barely got my Eagle despite 50 plus merit badges and getting Life at 15. But it was not because my troop program was not good. I had a good, active, troop. I managed to go to 2 high adventure bases and a Jamboree all after I achieved the rank of Life. But I was also active in multiple sports, academics, and other extracurricular activities, not to mention dating. And getting Eagle is not easy, my project took 5 months of solid work to complete. You mix in the 3 G's (Girls, Gas and Games) with other extracurricular programs and academics, available time becomes rare. Attending meetings is harder, weekend outings more so. The time needed for PoR also adds more time to Scouting and Eagle projects can be very difficult to fit in. 

All that said, it is a difficult task for boys to create a program that keeps all ages and ranks enthusiastic and engaged. As an adult leader I try to encourage our Scouts to work together to create programs that work for all of them, regardless of age or rank, and for older Scouts we may focus on more high adventure that suits their needs. That is no small task for them to do. 

While I do get disappointed in seeing Eagles withdraw, I also understand it. I do not begrudge their need and desire to other things besides Scouting, but I do try to help them make the most of their time while in Scouting, enjoy it and continue to learn from it. 

I'll try to get this back on the rails of the OP.

If I could just get Troop Committee to stop treating the Boy Scout program like Cub Scout program and start respecting the concept of boy-led troop rather than trying to it like a pack .

And to be fair, it is only a small number of the Committee, but enough, the we need to routinely remind them they boys lead, SM/ASM's guide, Committee supports.

From a religious and moral consideration, I know many Scouts, Scouters and CO’s have already voiced those concerns, but it is clear that not everyone will agree on those issues. I respect that different faiths, even churches within faiths, have different views on such matters. I have never been one for telling someone they are wrong in their faith, nor am I concerned when they tell me I am wrong about mine. So for a moment, let’s put religious and moral concerns aside for the sake of argument on other points. There is still plenty to be concerned with about this edict from National.

1.     First, it feels knee jerk, with little or no input from the millions of volunteers that do the hard work of implementing BSA programs. It feels as if they do not care or, that they believe they know what is best for the rest of us. Regardless of how you feel about previous policy changes, at least the rank and file where consulted. This bothers me greatly because it sets the precedent that we as volunteers have literally no say in the matters of the organization that we are the backbone of, not do the Scouts who are the heart and soul of the program. Creating at minimum, the appearance that our opinions and concerns are of no value to National.

2.     A Scenario – Samantha is born a biological female. At some point Samantha determines she should really be Sam and transitions to a boy and joins Cub Scouts. Sam eventually crosses over to Boy Scouts. Sam is an exemplary Scout, earning the rank of First Class, several merit badges, and so on. A year into Boy Scouts, Sam concludes that he really is a female and transitions back to being Samantha. And before someone says that will not happen, respected, peer reviewed psychiatrist and psychologist put the number of youths that will transition back to their biological sex at between 70-95%.

a.     Does the Charter Organization (CO) remove Samantha from the program? If they do, they likely face law suits, or at minimum a great deal of negative public opinion.

b.     Do they allow Samantha to stay and continue on to earn HER Eagle Scout? If so, what about Jessica, who is biologically female and identifies with that gender? Is she allowed in (not under the current policy), does her family sue if her application is rejected? After all, they will already have females in the troop and BSA.

c.     Does BSA open Boy Scouts up to girls? I have long been a proponent of BSA starting a parallel organization for girls. I have daughter that would love that opportunity and who is counting the days until she is old enough for Venturing. I also have a son who thinks Venturing being coed is great, but as he put it, he likes Boy Scouts, because sometimes he likes having a place to hang out with the guys.

d.     What if the CO denied Sam’s application to begin with? BSA policy and legal support does not guarantee the CO will not face legal action. Even if BSA can and does foot the bill for legal cost, the CO which is strapped for resources (people and time), can ill afford to spend the time required to mount a defense.

e.     What about YPT. I have seen a good many reference that coed works for venturing, but two deep leadership requires that a female adult be present when Venturing is coed. Will that now be the case with Boy Scouts? If the troop cannot get enough adult female support, do we cancel outings because Sam cannot go? Do we tell Sam “sorry, you cannot come on this trip?â€

f.      Do we allow/force Sam to tent with Brian? What if Brian is uncomfortable with that arrangement? Remember, these are 10-17 year old boys that we are struggling to teach the real meaning of the words of the oath and law. Transgender is a far more complicated issue for those young men to comprehend and for us as adults to explain with any degree of consistency.

g.     If we segregate Sam, then we as volunteers face accusations of discrimination. If we do not, we find ourselves in a legal quagmire. I can guarantee you if there is ever any issue, real or imagined, that someone feels they need to get an attorney involved in, this becomes problematic. A lawyer representing their client will not hesitate to point out that Sam is still biologically female, regardless of the fact they chose to be seen as a male, and the courts will almost certainly agree.

I am highly concerned about how all of these things will be viewed by CO’s, not just from a religious and moral perspective, but from a legal and logistical perspective. At some point the burden BSA places on CO’s may well become to high, even if they agree, with policy. At some point they may conclude that the baggage associated with BSA is not worth it and that there are other options for their youth missions.

I have always been a major supporter of our professionals. When I hear people complain, and many do, about professional Scouters, I am quick to jump to their defense for the huge amount of time and effort they put into the program and low amount the vast majority are paid. The way this policy change has been handled has made me lose any faith that remained in the professional in Dallas. Our local professional have been almost completely silent other than to say we are having conference calls with National, working on it and HOPE to release something soon. Clearly, National has left our local professional out of the loop and out on a limb that they were unprepared to deal with.

These issues, and many more, have been on my mind since the announcement. I could easily continue with a list of problems that we may encounter as volunteers, but this is plenty to chew on for now.

Hopefully leaving Helpful Tracks

Here are a few that i have seen personally

Biohazard Flaming Flying Squirrels

Toxic Bacon

Radioactive Potatoes

Flaming Coconuts

Narwhals

Moist Towelettes