Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tyke

Trans Scouting (Use other thread for new policy)

Recommended Posts

It will probably take a famous Eagle Scout to come out as transgender to convince some people. Others will see local examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew this was just a matter of time, but I had hoped it would take a few more years. More media pundits shouting about the evil BSA. More money spent on legal fees less on the scouts.

Edited by Oldscout448
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post much and normally stay away from religion and politics for obvious reasons. You'll never convince someone to change or even see your side. My brother is an ardent liberal and we've talked for decades and neither of us are switching any time soon.

 

That said, I wonder how many people who support gender changing and allowing this girl, er, boy in to scouts would similarly support me changing from a white male to a black male so I can get in to college easier? I mean it cuts both ways. If I "feel" more black than white, can I change and get recognized by everyone as being black?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - (From my experience 3 decades ago, but I think it still holds true.) Pubs in Britain are welcoming places ... even for the temperate. And depending on the bloke, there's almost as much to be gained in them as on these forums. :o

 

There is no such thing as trans people.  It is a hoax. ...

I don't think we have room for denial. That a percentage of the population would shun roles based on reproductive potential is nothing new ...
 

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12

 
This statement of Jesus was in a cultural context that only provided tracks for fulfilling reproductive potential. He was speaking against that sense that those roles are eternally immutable.
 
What is new is the push to accord those people the same privilege as the sex opposite their reproductive potential. So, in this youth's case, instead of challenging women to accept a female who prefers to express masculinity, and maybe "up their game" by encouraging girls to do a few "boy activities" for the youth's sake (and ultimately, the sake of equal rights), the child is being tossed "into the other court." It's the easy solution. And works in many contexts.
 
But, BSA is quite intentional about there being a "male track", just as GS/USA is intentional about being a "female track". Both have evolved over the decades  So the question also becomes: what does GS/USA lack that makes an 8 year old who shuns her reproductive potential unwelcome?

Edited by qwazse
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't smoke or drink alcohol. Consequently, I don't like to frequent pubs. Please don't infer that I do.

 

My degrees are in Health Education.  I teach middle school Science and Health.  I actually do have years of study in Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Human Sexuality and Adolescent Development.  

 

It is a frequent tactic of the left to infer that conservatives are all a bunch of uneducated, beer swilling, NASCAR loving yokels who get their all information and develop all their opinions from frequenting pubs and watching Fox News.

 

Wow, now there a stereotypical slam if I ever saw one.  Maybe in all that psychological training one might have picked up the nuance that in order to train a soldier to overcome their natural ability to preserve life by viewing the enemy in extremely negative ways...such as name calling.  I like NASCAR and I watch Fox News.  So where does that put me with my 8 years post high school degrees (3 of them), one of which involved psychology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qwazse,

 

The quote you cited refers only to the practice of celibacy.  The "it" Jesus is referring to is celibacy.  It is a real stretch to suggest that Jesus is referring any alternative lifestyle or sexual practice other than celibacy.  

 

Of course, it is your right to interpret it any way you want. 

 

I wouldn't mind if proponents of transgender rights used a religious argument to support their views.  If, for example, they were to claim that there are male and female souls, and that it is possible for a male soul to accidentally get put into a female body, I would respect their religious freedom to believe it.

 

Of course, in that case, the government would have no right to compel any of us to accept their religious belief.  

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, sorry for any confusion. I wasn't trying to interpret "it". The italics was from the online reference that I copied. I agree with you. The entire passage was a discussion on divorce without cause. And, Jesus was suggesting that celibacy would be better than trying to take on a wife knowing you could discard her as though she were a commodity.

 

But "eunuch" needs no interpretation. That's why He referenced them an example. These folks were present in ancient times. I'm sure they were as perplexing then as folks who want to shun their reproductive roles these days are. However, society managed to find a place for them. And Jesus was pointing out that if such ones as those could manage (some willingly some forcibly), then his disciples could do just as well in celibacy if they couldn't set aside their perceived right to toss wives aside willy-nilly.

 

My point is, if in referencing them, Christ was treating them seriously, we would do well to do likewise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... My point is, if in referencing them, Christ was treating them seriously, we would do well to do likewise.

And that's even if we may think they are not worthy of the privileges of the sex they are trying to emulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going into the sixth page of ruminations.

 

The child experiments.  If I cry, do I get my diaper changed?  Aha, it works.  If I say "MAMA" , do I get a smile?  Aha, that works.   If I say "Gimme a Cookie!" will I get one as quick as if I say Please, may I have a cookie?"    Is pushing a toy bulldozer thru the sandbox as fun as  setting up the dollies for a tea party?  Or a Barbecue party?  I did both.

 

At age 8, the child is experimenting.  I wore flannel jeans, flannel shirts, just like my timber cruiser dad.  I also played with "Mr. Bunny" and helped mom cook (she was our Den Mother), and take care of my younger brother.

  I dare say, with the media what it is, this girl is experimenting with her "role", as she sees it,  but to an extreme most kids would (are ) not  (s)extend their experimentation to.  Mom and dad are letting her experiment. 

 

Cub Scouts?   Why not?   She/he will figure it out eventually.   Gender change surgery?   Wow, not at 8 years old.  Not even close to the Age of Reason. 

 

I had a boy in my Cub Pack who would not button up his shirt. His mom said "Billy doesn't like his shirt buttoned, he feels it too confining".  One evening, at the Pack Meeting, I kneeled down and buttoned up his shirt and told him how handsome he looked.   He came to Pack meeting after that with his shirt buttoned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, sorry for any confusion. I wasn't trying to interpret "it". The italics was from the online reference that I copied. I agree with you. The entire passage was a discussion on divorce without cause. And, Jesus was suggesting that celibacy would be better than trying to take on a wife knowing you could discard her as though she were a commodity.

 

But "eunuch" needs no interpretation. That's why He referenced them an example. These folks were present in ancient times. I'm sure they were as perplexing then as folks who want to shun their reproductive roles these days are. However, society managed to find a place for them. And Jesus was pointing out that if such ones as those could manage (some willingly some forcibly), then his disciples could do just as well in celibacy if they couldn't set aside their perceived right to toss wives aside willy-nilly.

 

My point is, if in referencing them, Christ was treating them seriously, we would do well to do likewise.

 

I'm not sure who exactly you think Jesus was referencing.  Perhaps "eunuch" does need some interpretation.

 

I take a pretty literal interpretation of the reference to being born a eunuch.  I think it means they were born with cryptorchidism (undescended testicles). This condition effects about 1% of male children.  I don't think it could be surgically corrected in that time and place.

 

I don't know if ancient peoples were perplexed by birth defects.  Jesus certainly had great sympathy for people with physical handicaps.  

 

I think you are probably correct if you are saying that Jesus took people with cryptorchidism seriously and wanted them to be included and not shunned.

 

Otherwise, I think you are making a pretty big stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, TT. I drew on ancient history to show that these sorts of people who defy the categories of reproductive roles are nothing new. What is new is the effort to give them the full fraternity/sorority of the role to which they aspire.

 

@@Adamcp, if you don't want to use a bridge, feel free to shout from across the gap. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one looks at how people responded to Lance Armstrong (before he was caught cheating) and compare it with the public perception of Bruce Jenner, it is obvious that reproduction isn't the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adamcp,

 

If you have read my posts, then you would know that I am not a wonderful scouter.  Unlike many on this site, I have no exceptional outdoor skills.  I'm just an average guy.

 

I have had some pretty wonderful scouters in my unit.  They made me look good.  It is easy to look good when you have a great bunch of guys working for you.

 

Most importantly, I have a great Chartered Organization.  It is their unit, not mine.  The CO deserves the lions share of the credit for having chartered a unit and offering this program for the boys.  

 

I truly hope that I am not a big influence on the boys. I want the Holy Spirit to be the guiding influence in their lives.

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be easiest if BSA said that what is on your birh certificate controls?  Then it is up to each state to determine what is necessary to have a birth certificate changed.  Then BSA could easily say, we go by state law and if you want a change in how that law is applied, go to your state legislature.

 

So that means if you have a person who is listed as a male on the birth certificate but who identifies as a female, they can be in Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts.  If you have a person who is listed as a female on the birth certificate but identfies as a male, they can not.  If someone is born female but has their birth certificate changed to male by meeting their states requriements, they are welcomed.

 

This isn't the BSA's issue, it is society's issue.  Let society resolve it and let the BSA avoid the distractions by being another test case.  I'm just tired of all the controversy and just want Scouting to be about camping, cooking and leadership.  Nonetheless, if BSA follows the birth certificate rule, I think they will easily prevail in court.

 

With all the other issues, the answer really is somewhere in between the extremes.  There are those people who truly feel that they were born the wrong gender.  I would think that is the less than one percent of the population figure quoted earlier in the thread.  There are those that having a different gender identity is a response to the adolescent process of determing who you will be in that there now seems to be one more "decision" that you can make (e.g. I view adolescence as making a series of choices along a continuum -- tough guy or commpasionate, athletic or sloth like, honorable or do what i can get away with, self-interested or caring, etc.).  I suspect that some of those identities may change over time.  The problem if figuring out the difference especially if you add the additional layers of publicity the issue has been getting, the potential of parental influence at the younger ages and the potential "trendy" factor in being "trans."

 

With that in mind, I see a difference between rules and behaviors.  A rule, like the birth-certificate rule I mention above, provides clear guidance and consistent treatment.  Any other test is arbitrary - if the youth identifies, if one parent agrees with identification, if both parents agree with identification, if both parents and a physician or psychologist agree, if both parents, a physician, a psychologist and the Cub Master agree, etc.  Without a rule, it becomes subjective.  Behaviors is how we act toward youth that identify with a different gender than the one on their birth certificate.  My sense is that we give them the space they need to figure things out for themselves - one way or another.  We don't judge, we just listen and support them in figuring out who they are and who they will be.

 

nstead of challenging women to accept a female who prefers to express masculinity, and maybe "up their game" by encouraging girls to do a few "boy activities" for the youth's sake (and ultimately, the sake of equal rights), the child is being tossed "into the other court." 

 

 

That is one thing that leaves me wondering the most.  It seems that today there are so few true non-biological distinctions between genders.  The only hard and fast ones that I can come up with are that boys "don't" typically wear dresses or skirts and don't typically wear makeup and nail polish. Out of all the factors that determine who you can be, I see gender being the least restrictive and thing like family, intelligence, education and income being so much more determinative.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×