"Boy Scouts thrive after lifting of gay ban."

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Again, what I want is irrelevant, regardless if we agree or not.  The BSA finally had to choose which fork in the road to take over homosexual/lesbian adult leaders.  That path led invariably to allowing transgender youth, and it leads invariably to a co-ed program.  Given that we've passed the transgender mile marker, co-ed is right around the corner.  The BSA gave a thumbs up to youth with female plumbing and XX chromosomes who want to be boys.   Personally, I thought co-ed and transgender would have happened simultaneously, but apparently the BSA is allowing to units and leaders time to emotionally adapt.

 

So, co-ed is going to happen.  If you're committed to the program itself, you might as well reconcile yourself and look for some of the benefits for the organization as a whole.   I'm not sure it helps to sit around and disagree with a decision that has essentially already been made, and since I'm on board, I'll tout the upside whether I privately agree or not.   

 

I think they are separate issues.  Accepting a youth as a boy who identifies as a boy, who "lives as a boy", whose parents accept him as a boy and want him to be in a program for boys, whose school accepts him as a boy, and (I am speculating here, but I think I'm right) whose medical/psychological professionals accept him as a boy, is a decision that stands on its own.  It is about transgender youth, and that's it.  That decision does not make it inevitable that the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will accept girls.  It only is inevitable if one does not believe that transgender is a "real thing."  I believe it is a real thing.  So "coed" is not inevitable.

[Col. Flagg 909]

I think they are separate issues.  Accepting a youth as a boy who identifies as a boy, who "lives as a boy", whose parents accept him as a boy and want him to be in a program for boys, whose school accepts him as a boy, and (I am speculating here, but I think I'm right) whose medical/psychological professionals accept him as a boy, is a decision that stands on its own.  It is about transgender youth, and that's it.  That decision does not make it inevitable that the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will accept girls.  It only is inevitable if one does not believe that transgender is a "real thing."  I believe it is a real thing.  So "coed" is not inevitable.

 

Boy Scouts didn't allow TG because of any of that. They did it because of pressure. They likely did it because they mistakenly thing it will stop the membership loss. @@EmberMike is saying from what I read that he thinks coed is inevitable for the same reasons.

[Eagledad 2777]

 

So, co-ed is going to happen.  If you're committed to the program itself, you might as well reconcile yourself and look for some of the benefits for the organization as a whole.   I'm not sure it helps to sit around and disagree with a decision that has essentially already been made, and since I'm on board, I'll tout the upside whether I privately agree or not.   

Again...Hypothesis or theory?

 

It doesn't matter how may different ways you say it, I still think it's a bad idea. 

 

Barry

[EmberMike 144]

Boy Scouts didn't allow TG because of any of that. They did it because of pressure. They likely did it because they mistakenly thing it will stop the membership loss. @@EmberMike is saying from what I read that he thinks coed is inevitable for the same reasons.

 

 

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.