Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
qwazse

BSA after 6 decades of identity politics

Recommended Posts

Well as we know, the BSA has had a policy of "avoiding confrontation" at all levels, so choice #1 seems in our future.

I don't know you interpret the 30-year confrontation over the "gay policy", in which the BSA was actively involved on one side, as "avoiding confrontation." I don't think it's correct to look at the ultimate resolution of the issue, in which (in my opinion) the BSA made the correct decision, as "avoiding confrontation".

 

Another example is the BSA policy on religion. It seems LESS likely than it did, say 10 years ago, that the BSA will expressly make belief in a higher power or a religion "optional", despite the fact that it continues to be a subject of "confrontation".

 

I think the actual policy of the BSA is to take these issues in a case-by-case basis and pick their battles. The most recent example was when they decided that a person who identifies himself as a boy, whose parents and school accept him as a boy, can be accepted into a program for boys, in a unit that wants to accept him. Despite the reaction from some in this forum, it is not that big a deal. It does not necessarily mean Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will become coed. They may at some point, but not because a kid from Secaucus NJ is allowed to be a Cub Scout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Despite the reaction from some in this forum, it is not that big a deal. It does not necessarily mean Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will become coed. They may at some point, but not because a kid from Secaucus NJ is allowed to be a Cub Scout.

 

And here is the crux of the matter.  "Despite the reaction from some on this forum, it is not that big a deal."  One would think that multiple threads on this issue with hundreds of replies, way more than the average life of threads, that it just may be that big a deal?

 

"It does not necessarily mean Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will become coed. They may at some point, but not because a kid from Secaucus NJ is allowed to be a Cub Scout."  One must realize that this is not just some "kid from Secaucus, NJ" this is a girl from Secaucus, NJ and with acceptance of her membership means Cub Scouts now accepts biological girls into their program.  Once she reaches 10-11, she will cross over to Boy Scouts and that program as well will accept girls. 

 

With this new policy change, they will now have to defend their position as to why some girls can be in Cub Scouts and not others.  Let's see how that all shakes out.  Hypocrisy can't hold it's water for very long.   The first point will be, if this girl is a "boy" why does it take both male and female leaders at events where "he" is at.  Hypocrisy is a really tough subject to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first point will be, if this girl is a "boy" why does it take both male and female leaders at events where "he" is at.  Hypocrisy is a really tough subject to defend.

Where does the BSA say this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the BSA say this?

 

Biological girls and biological boys on a scouting activity must have at least one male and one female adults present.  If the participants are biologically different, I surely under no circumstances would risk my 38 years in scouting on a girl whose parents haven't figured out whether they have a son or daughter having read the birth certificate.  

 

I may be an out-dated SM, but I'm not going to get caught up in the "he touched me" argument in a court of law.  I need a bit of up-front honesty prior to taking on situations like this.

 

BSA can say anything it wants, it's got the Big Bucks donations to defend itself, I don't.

 

"Other people" can figure this out, until then, I'm not part of the problem, I'm not part of the solution.  I work with young boys transitioning into men.  I'm not at all interested in young girls transitioning into men.  If my CO decides this is how it defines it's mission for the troop, then they can get a new leader who is willing to go along with it.  Until then, it's business as usual.

 

So to answer the question directly.  IT DOESN"T which seems to make one wonder how much thought went into the change in the first place.  It's always better to have all the safeguards in place before driving the truck out onto the ice.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know you interpret the 30-year confrontation over the "gay policy", in which the BSA was actively involved on one side, as "avoiding confrontation." I don't think it's correct to look at the ultimate resolution of the issue, in which (in my opinion) the BSA made the correct decision, as "avoiding confrontation".

 

Another example is the BSA policy on religion. It seems LESS likely than it did, say 10 years ago, that the BSA will expressly make belief in a higher power or a religion "optional", despite the fact that it continues to be a subject of "confrontation".

 

I think the actual policy of the BSA is to take these issues in a case-by-case basis and pick their battles. The most recent example was when they decided that a person who identifies himself as a boy, whose parents and school accept him as a boy, can be accepted into a program for boys, in a unit that wants to accept him. Despite the reaction from some in this forum, it is not that big a deal. It does not necessarily mean Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will become coed. They may at some point, but not because a kid from Secaucus NJ is allowed to be a Cub Scout.

 

My point is the BSA will not openly discuss program changes, council mergers/camp closures, releasing the pervert list, membership policy changes, financial transparency, and ... as they want to avoid confrontation. They just manage reactive decisions when faced with legal action.

 

My $0.02

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be an out-dated SM, but I'm not going to get caught up in the "he touched me" argument in a court of law.  I need a bit of up-front honesty prior to taking on situations like this.

 

Why do you think this is a bigger risk or more likely scenario than little boys accusing you of something and saying "he touched me"?

 

Two deep leadership still applies and would mitigate both scenarios, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one watches closely, little girls react to the world differently than little boys.  Much of this is observable and predictable.  On the other hand a little girl who wants to be treated as a little boy is an anomaly.  I really can't predict how they plan on reacting to any situation I am involved with.  For my protection, I will avoid such issues until the laws catch up with what's going on.  

 

Right now on the news there's a white gal who posed as a black person to get into schools and be part of the black culture.  Now she's unemployed, homeless and is considered a fraud.  Why does this not work for the issues of race like it is being attempted in sexuality?  If I can't predict the reliability of a child, I'm surely not going to try and figure out the reality of this whole mess.  Nope, too many unpredictable variables for me to try and figure out.  Gender is imaginary, sexuality is a biological, scientific reality.

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  

×