Maybe the Girl Scouts can be the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts can be the Boy Scouts but both can allow members of all genders.
They want to join the Boy Scouts.
- Thread starter LittlePinto
- Start date
Well we weren't discussing non-cis kids but widespread acceptance/understanding there is relatively new everywhere. The topic was boy scouts and girl scouts remaining separate or merging. And yes, I do think kids tend to join and stay in the optional groups they like and not be in the ones they don't like. If the mixed gender groups were preferred, then yes, I do think they would grow and girl scouts/boy scouts shrink. It seems quite logical to me. That's not been the case so I think their preference is clear, regardless of what others may think would be best.
Last edited:
I like that. Or maybe they can be Scouts, since there's no actual reason for Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. (These are made-up things. We know that, right? A boy/girl scout is a made-up entity.)
It probably hasn't been tested since the understanding of gender-binaries changed. And it probably should be. But until it is, I think inclusion does less harm than exclusion. Generally.
That would be a different thing.
I think there is still reason for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to be separate things, alongside gender neutral options.
Sometimes girls are more comfortable with girls and boys are more comfortable with boys.
But I think it would be good for boys who are more comfortable with girls and girls who are more comfortable with boys to have a place, too.
Though if Girl Scouts simply isn't offering the kind of activities some girls want, then that should change, too, and I don't see that would be too difficult.
If girls are more comfortable with girls and boys are more comfortable with boys (assuming that) So what? In a Scouts club, those girls could mix with those girls and those boys could mix with those boys. That would happen naturally and no-one would be being excluded.
This just seems like common sense to me. Take a step back and see if the world of childhood would be any different at all if Boys Clubs didn't exclude girls and non-cis-gendered boys and Girls Clubs didn's exclude boys and non-cis-gendered girls. I really think it's the adults who are doing the enforced exclusions. The kids will just find their own friends.
This just seems like common sense to me. Take a step back and see if the world of childhood would be any different at all if Boys Clubs didn't exclude girls and non-cis-gendered boys and Girls Clubs didn's exclude boys and non-cis-gendered girls. I really think it's the adults who are doing the enforced exclusions. The kids will just find their own friends.
As has been mentioned, there are already other mixed gender groups that a child can join if they don't like the girl/boy scouts model. There's no reason to demand that girls and boys can't have any same-gender groups. As I said, I still enjoy times that are "just the girls." That's valuable to me, not something dysfunctional that needs to be stamped out.
Last edited:
The Scouts in Britain have accepted girls for years - decades even. I had no idea that the USA hadn't followed suit with this, seeing as Scouts is a worldwide movement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 11,751
- Reaction score
- 12,201
- Location
- Atherton Tablelands
- Website
- snailseyeview.medium.com
Actually, you could have as easily bolded the part that said "There are already other mixed gender groups that a child can join if they don't like the girl/boy scouts model. There's no reason to demand that girls and boys can't have any same-gender groups." But I guess you prefer to cherry pick sentences to try to make me look foolish or something, idk.
Idk I guess I prefer to bold the part that doesn't address the statement I already addressed. Idk...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
The thing is, and I can't believe me and fruitbat agree on something. It does seem petty to try to make all of these types of organizations inclusive across the board. It's almost like saying Keshet, a group that works specifically with the LGBT Jewish community and straight Jewish allys, isn't inclusive enough as an LGBT group because it focuses on Jewish people. The kid equivalent would be saying that Jewish organizations in the vein of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts aren't inclusive enough because they're choosing to focus on a smaller demographic than all children. I don't believe that.
What's more, I honestly don't think making those groups all inclusive would actually help transgender children. Trans kids often don't only resent their bodies feeling wrong, but also that they can't be included in things like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts without people saying something. By making all groups of this nature gender neutral it takes away the options of not only cis-kids, but trans ones as well to choose whether they want a co-ed enviorment or not. They don't even have the option now, not really. Taking that option away completely feels cruel to me. Inclusion would be better served by giving them the same options as other kids, i.e., Girl/Boy Scouts type orgs or co-ed orgs.
It's a good point you make, Lillith - I'm just wondering whether it mightn't be better for non-CIS kids to be approaching the world from a position that they have a right to join Boys or Girls Clubs, but they could also choose to join a non-CIS club. As could CIS boys and girls. I think that would be a better way of approaching inclusion. I know I'm not the last word on this - I'm just wondering if there's a reason why that wouldn't be a better teaching idea for all concerned - given that the whole idea behind these clubs is about enhancing childhood for children.
ETA: My experience of kids (being 146 years old) is that they want to belong to the group. The big group. Not the special group. That's why I'm not convinced - yet. But I could be.
ETA: My experience of kids (being 146 years old) is that they want to belong to the group. The big group. Not the special group. That's why I'm not convinced - yet. But I could be.
Last edited:
I think they are in some Muslim countries, where there's more separation of genders generally in their cultures. Probably a few other places as well.
When I was a kid in the 80s, there was Scouts for boys and Guides for girls, but there was very little if any difference in the kinds of activities they provided and the local group I was a member of used to constantly do mixed Scout and Guide meetings, mixed wide games*, mixed rounders matches (usually Scouts v Guides), and even joint Scout and Guide camps. I don't think it was a big step in the UK to go from that to the Scouts allowing girls to join. The Guides are still girls only, but I think that's more a case of there not being any great demand for boys to join the Guides.
*not sure what this is called in other parts of the world, but it's where you have a big problem to solve and the game is played in teams across a wide expanse of countryside and sometimes flour and eggs were involved (as weapons) kind of like a cross between paintball and orienteering plus a problem to solve and teams winning or losing based on how far they get solving the problem(s). Kind of anything really, so long as it involves outdoorsy skills and a bit of competition.
Hmm. My memories of being a kid was that adults were always trying to push us into the big group, when we were often happier with out littler, specialer groups.
I do think those littler, specialer groups should be inclusive, but I don't think everyone needs to be part of one big group when they're happier with the littler, specialer ones.
Yeah - I might have mis-spoken when I said "little". I meant the emphasis to be on "special". In my (Australian) experience, kids want to belong to the main group, the wider group - even if they're at the tail end of it. They don't (in Australia) generally want to be sent out to the "special" group (which is necessarily smaller). This might be an Australian thing. The "special" group might be brighter, higher-achieving, special-needs-oriented, or ESL or a million other things including non-CIS. In my experience kids would only sign up for that group if it saved them a thumping.
I guess that's why I'm asking questions here, rather than making statements. It might well be an Australian perspective.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
I'm not thinking of trans kids having special groups, but of them being allowed to join either a co-ed group or Boy/Girl Scouts like other children. To me at least, inclusion would be them having the exact same options as cis-kids. Trans boys could choose Camp Fire Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Boy Scouts etc. and girls Camp Fire Scouts, Girls Inc., Girl Scouts etc. They wouldn't be forced to pick the co-ed group because they can't be in the gender exclusive group, and could instead be a part of it because that's what they really want.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how you got the impression that's what Lillith was suggesting.
Like I said earlier, I think the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts could stay the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, but allow people of all genders. I don't think they need to change who they primarily serve, but they can change who they let in.
Ah. Call it my naturally sunny disposition. I misread a lot.
ETA: To be fair, I wasn't responding to Lillith - I was responding to you. But ok.
Last edited:
ETA: You know what? I'm going to think about this. My worry is that kids with enlightened parents might not have a problem, but a boy whose dad wants him to be A Man might have a different experience.
I don't see (yet) why segregation isn't helping that dad more that it's helping that boy. But I'll think about it.
Last edited:
Well at least it explains why the first part of post 66 confused me so much.
I had no idea what you were saying to disagree lol.
Neither Lillith nor I are saying segregate cis and non-cis, so I'm still not sure where you're getting that.
Ignoring that — and this is my entirely personal take on this — many children tend to segregate by gender on their own. So I think that's probably going to happen no matter what.
In a gender neutral setting where kids have nonetheless self-segregated by gender, then if you're unsure and still figuring things out, it's easy to just go with your assigned sex, rather than try to break into the other group.
If you keep the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts around but allowing all genders, it gives non-gender-conforming kids the chance to be one of the boys or one of the girls, which I think can be important.
And if you're cis but just happen to get along better with the opposite gender, then it works out, too.
Last edited: