I must say this to all those saying why are girls joining boys baseball teams
and boys football teams well see why cause school don’t offer baseball teams
for girls or football teams for girls if they did girls would have no reason to
join the male team. There is boy scout and girls scout that offer similar programs.
If schools offered a female football team then girls don’t need to join the boys but
they don’t offer teams for girls so they have no other choice.Females don’t
like rude comments males make to them especially if they
forced to share a tent with them making comments about how they look
in pajama’s .Whats next male and female sharing a tent and kids getting it
on together or worse someone getting raped cause we put the two together.
Boys don’t invite girls at this age to their birthday parties and girls don’t invite
boys .Girls and boys like activities where they can just be girls or just be boys.I
feel bad for kid for the way he feels but girls scout is for girls and boys scouts is
boys that is the way it always been and the way it should stay.
But since you have no way of knowing if Bobby is transgender and 90 per cent of these kids don’t grow up living as a member of the opposite sex, I’m still going to vote “should’ve seen shrink”. A nice one, a positive one, and not for any kind of suppression therapy, but for support.
I also want to remind everyone that when the story first broke, Bobby was living and being addressed as a boy. It was a case of boy who likes girl things and can’t join Girl Scouts. Now he’s living life as a transgender. His mother said in the Yahoo article that he now dressed like a girl after the incidnet and she said she thought her son was transgender.
Gender identity is just “Are you a boy, or a girl, or something else?” This is not influenced by society. This cannot be changed using any methods we know of right now. As far as we know, this is hardwired into to the brain, and we are starting to unravel it. And yes, people do answer this with certainty when they are 7 years old. Please read the study I linked to- the majority of transgender people knew with certainty around age 5.
Again, this has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientations.
Gender roles, which is what Planned Parenthood is talking about, are what you then do with your gender. It’s about how your sexual gender identity is played out in society. It’s about what it means, on a practical level, to be a boy or a girl. This is largely socially determined.
That makes absolutely zero sense. A shrink is not necessary to “diagnose” someone as transgender. And there’s as much evidence that Bobby is trans (or at least not cis) as there is to support your contention that zie isn’t. It’s not as if this child’s gender identity or status must be confirmed by a third party before its real.
You’re pathologizing this child because of your unwillingness to acknowledge or accept what is known within the community of professionals who deal with gender (including that of pre-adolescents) and all based upon a couple of news reports. That’s really frightening. The made up statistics aren’t helping either.
No, that’s what the news report said. Whether that’s accurate or a reflection or editing or editorial choice we don’t know. We don’t live in Bobby’s house every day. We’re not Bobby’s parents, teachers or otherwise. We don’t know this child. That includes you.
Transgender isn’t a noun, either. You know, if you can’t even get the terminology right, you need to step back, stop talking about this, go get yourself some Gender 101 education and reconsider everything you’ve tried to present as a “fact.” Because right now you’re just flailing and failing massively about this kid and all things gender in the name of what? Preserving your assumptive belief of what gender identities are legitimate? Yeah, you don’t get to the arbiter of that when you’re still using highly offensive phrases like “a transgender.”
Members of the same sex can’t get it on or even worse rape each other?
I can understand your logic however, we don’t allow people out of their homes because they might do bad things. It makes more sense to treat everyone as criminals rather then allow the possibility of them committing a crime.
Why not allow our children some freedom rather then treating them like criminals and segregating them by gender.
My made-up statistics? I was taking that from one of the links about Bobby Montoya. Someone of PFLAG Canada said it, so I was taking my cue from the expert. As far as the therapist goes, if Bobby is a girl (or however you want to phrase it), that’s a long tough road and a therapist may be handy. Plus the mom didn’t even consider alternative explanations for his behavior, even though he has been like this since the age of two.
Maybe my stint in Human Sexuality in college is dated now, but I was sure I was using *gender identity *correctly. Perhaps the books have been rewritten. If a society has more than one gender, it’s fair to say society determines what makes someone of that gender.
It would seem the pileup on me is my resistance to accepting a boy into Girl Scouts, not the language.
Again, the mother did not call GS and say she wanted to enroll her boy who was a transgender/transgendered/trans/whatever you want to call it. She said she wanted to enroll her son. She also said her son did not live as a girl. So I think my reaction was completely fair. Only after the media attention has the boy started to live as a girl and the mother made the statement about his gender identity. In the beginning, this was a case of ‘effeminate boy wants to join Girl Scouts’. That’s what I objected to. Perhaps it best to not get emotional and to keep it on topic.
Thank you for your input. How then do you explain Scouting in Canada, where there are literally hundreds of scout groups that contain both boys and girls?
They never ever share tents on camping trips. I don’t know of any cases of Scouts in Canada raping each other. It seems that your fears are not well-founded, as there is a clearcut example to the north of you where there are no problems in this area.
Saying “that’s the way it has always been and the way it should stay” is not logical reasoning. To follow this rule would be to never change anything, including changes for good.
So your immediate presumption is that the mother was lying or has changed her story, rather than that the initial media reports were inaccurate or failed to present the whole story.
You don’t know this for certainty. All you have is a study that says transgender people say they knew at x age. Do you not see the error In concluding that people in general correctly identify their gender identity at age x? It’s the equivalent of asking current professional baseball players when they knew they’d be a professional baseball player. I bet you would get really young ages where they knew with certainty they were destined for greatness. Then somebody comes along later, reads the account, and erroneously concludes that people (in general) know pretty early on whether they are gonna play professional baseball. How do we know that’s true? Well, a bunch of real pros say they knew early on, and they were obviously right since they are real pros.
The study, like my example, exclude all false positives and negatives, and gives us no data on how common correct self identification is on both sides. Honestly, it’s just a mess, regardless of how accurate the results may be.
Therein lies the problem with you citing these things as proof that society should take every kid who wants to be the opposite sex as a matter of life and death. Or, one in which long-standing institutions should break tradition and rules to cater to a small, amorphous group with no real reliable, or verifiable characteristics. I get that this is largely due to this being an emerging science. I don’t say that to be harsh, as I do understand that there a real people that are suffering. I am honestly trying to be sensitive to both you and your (often valid) positions. But, the level of histrionics, and the presentation of very shaky science to validate your positions is beneath you.
The argument is just that people should be tolerant for the sake of civility and openness. As you mentioned, several societies throughout history have accepted transgendered people without the benefit of brain scans and autopsies. The science is merely a distraction in this case, as the bottom line is how appropriate it is for groups to set guidelines for entry.
[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
Maybe my stint in Human Sexuality in college is dated now, but I was sure I was using *gender identity *correctly. Perhaps the books have been rewritten. If a society has more than one gender, it’s fair to say society determines what makes someone of that gender.
[/quote]
Think about it like sexual orientation (note: this is a metaphor, not an attempt to say that gender identity and sexual orientation are related or in any way the same thing.) In our society, we tend to categorize people as gay, straight, or bisexual. But we all know sexuality exists on a continuum, and different cultures have different ways of organizing sexual orientation. For example, in Latin America you find the “down low” phenomena, where men identify entirely as straight heterosexual men who just happen to have sex with other men now and then. Looking back historically, it’s not quite accurate to say “ancient Greeks were pretty much bisexual.” They often had sexual encounters with both genders, but they weren’t the same kind of bisexual that we are today. In other words, society determines what makes someone gay or straight or bi.
But, despite it being a social construct, people really are still gay, straight or bi, it can’t really be changed or altered by society, and it usually turns out really ugly when people try.
Gender is the same thing- society determines what it means and how it is expressed and played out, but gender identity itself is still something biological and fundamental.
Has anyone said “society should take every kid who wants to be the opposite sex as a matter of life and death?” No. I believe the only people who can make those decisions are the person themselves, their guardians, and their doctors. I would never walk up to a kid and say “You are a transgender person- go join the girl scouts NOW!” but if that person told me “I am a transgender person and I’d like to join the girl scouts” I think it’s fair to take that at face value unless there is some compelling reason not to.
As mentioned, Girl Scouts already welcomes transgender scouts. And yes, I see no reason not to cater to a small amorphous group with no real reliable or verifiable characteristics when doing so really doesn’t hurt or change anything.
Did I accuse you of such a thing wrt the girl scouts? My issue is that you seem to be the one introducing inconclusive science, drawing shaky conclusions, and acting as though disagreement on the above, or the ways society should respond to transgendered people, is literally a matter of life and death in most cases, and as such, is not subject to debate. Along those lines, you tote out the lamentably high-rate of suicide amongst transgendered people as a emotion cudgel with which you can squash all debate with regard to how (and how far) society can (should) go to make fair, reasonable accommodations to who need them.
Why? I am asking this as an honest question? What makes you think a kid that young can make a reasonable judgment in that regard? More importantly, what makes you think that a child of 7 (or 5) has an idea of the concept in question at all? Please keep in mind that your site asked adults when they knew as opposed to asking children at a given age. As such, there is a ton of ex post facto rationalization, and faulty memories.
Fair enough. I honestly don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I would have to wonder if you think discrimination on the basis of gender/sex is ever reasonable? Should the girl scouts accept non-transgendered boys as well? If not, why not? From the perspective of a parent of a girl scout, should it really matter if the boy in question feels they should have been born a girl?
Denying transgender people access to the only known effective treatment is a matter of life and death. Not knowing much of anything about the parties involved, I can’t really weigh in on if this particular incident (or any given incident) has that gravity. The point is that:
Transgender is a real phenomena, not some sexual kick, delusion or whatever people think it might be.
There are very good reasons to accommodate transgender people, and very real risks to choosing not to. It’s not something you can just avoid or ignore without consequence.
Are you really telling me that a child of 7 cannot answer the question “Are you a boy or a girl?”
That’s all it takes. If the child’s answer is causing that child distress, it makes sense for the parents, the child and the child’s doctor to figure out a plan of action, doesn’t it? Why would you want that kid to be in so much distress when there are pretty simple solutions?
Actually, I don’t see a lot of reasons why discrimination on gender/sex is ever a good idea. For example, I refuse to join women’s organizations that categorically don’t admit men. In my experience, men can be our greatest allies and partners in the fight for gender equality. I doubt many men are interested in joining organizations primarily targeted for women, but I see no reason not to accommodate them if they are able to contribute meaningfully to the organization. Then again, I’m not too squeamish. Coed bathrooms, for example, don’t bug me at all, but I can recognize why some people might not be comfortable with them.
From the perspective of a parent of a girl scout, what would I have to worry about? It’s a seven year old boy, not a monster. Who cares?
No, my logical conclusion is that after the story broke, they decided that Bobby was a girl from now on. There was information that the GS troop leader did not have. I’m sure she had the opportunity to flush out her whole story as the local media gave her screen and print time. It is not hard to say, “Bobby is a transgender child…” or however you want to phrase it.
They can. But it may fluctuate over time. The 90 per cent thing I said was a quote from a PFLAG rep.
Again, one of my radars went off because the child had not been to a doctor.
This child is not only ‘being a girl’, but also obsessed with everything ‘girly’ - things that are only ‘girly’ because society says so.
Because for kids, gender segregation can help build and focus on positive self esteem, gender-related issues, and form positive friendships and role models. That should just go without saying. Look at the problems facing girls: eating disorders, pregnancy, boys, parents, societal expectations, academics, changing bodies, the increasing sexualization of young girls, etc.
Who is denying anyone effective treatment? Unless you are arguing that a boy being denied access to the girl scouts is being denied “treatment”, the comment has no place in this discussion.
But that is not the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is to weigh in on this particular incident and related issues.
Who has ever argued that it wasn’t serious?
There are good reason to accommodate a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean those reasons outweigh the potential negative consequences of accommodations. That’s why the standard is reasonable accommodations, not whatever has to be done so that person x doesn’t feel compelled to kill themselves.
Not in a way that gives us any real indication of whether they are actually transgendered. They will likely parrot whatever they have been told, or what they have outwardly observed. If it were as easy as just asking/answering the question you posed, why did 4% (according to your own cite) need 18 plus years to figure out the answer to your question?
But more generally, I don’t take much of what a child tells me as gospel. Let’s pretend you have a seven-year old kid. If one day he wakes up and tells you he is a Hisidic Jew, or a vegan. Do you allow them to change their diet? What if he tells you he has an imaginary friend, or a split personality? Do you assume they are making correct clinical diagnoses? Generally no. The reason is because kids are generally bad at making deliberative, complex decisions or appraisals with long-term, real-world consequences. Obviously, there are situations that are real, and in need of remedy, but the idea that we should accept what a 7 year old says at face-value is pretty absurd.
Your “simple solutions” in this case involve forcing others to do something they may not be comfortable with for a variety of valid reasons.
Then maybe we should just agree to disagree. I think your position is naive, and likely clouded by your personal circumstances. If there were no gender/sex discrimination, there would be no women playing in the WNBA. There would be no world-class professional female athletes for the most part. There would likely be far more violence against women in a variety of circumstances (among other things).
Obviously people care, that’s why it’s in the newspaper. I am not some guy who thinks this marks the decline of civilization, but I think its fair to point out that we are in pretty uncharted territory, and that the consequences of making decisions like this are not known at this time.
More problematic to me is that the GSA will accept this boy because he lives as a girl, but won’t accept a boy who lives as a boy. Why is that distinction even relevant?
Yes, gender identity at a young age can be a transient and fluctuating thing. This is one reason, for example, why nobody anywhere advocates performing sexual reassignment surgery on small children. Appropriate interventions for small children, such as this, are completely reversable.
So, if five years from now he decides he’s done with the girl thing, who cares? Who is hurt? What does it matter to you? For some people, gender identity is not easy or straightforward and does not work out neatly. Sometimes, it can be pretty complicated and confusing from a young age. I don’t have a neat, tidy solution. The thing is, you don’t have a neat, tidy solution either. You seem to think the “default” is forcing a child to live against their gender identity. But that’s not really a default, that’s an active choice. In a default society, people would just live with whatever gender identity works best for them as they see fit, without a bunch of random people telling them how they should feel or what gender they should be performing.
This article in the Archive of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine advocates an “affirming” approach, where young people are given a safe, supportive environment to explore gender without feeling pressured to commit to any particular gender or the “transgender” label. There is no reason to piegon hole anyone when they are that young, and it is actively harmful to try to force them to perform an identity they are not comfortable with.
This article in the Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal states:
It does not recommend seeking therapy unless there is an obvious reason.
[QUOTE=CitizenPained]
Because for kids, gender segregation can help build and focus on positive self esteem, gender-related issues, and form positive friendships and role models. That should just go without saying. Look at the problems facing girls: eating disorders, pregnancy, boys, parents, societal expectations, academics, changing bodies, the increasing sexualization of young girls, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Research does not support that single-sex institutions are across-the-board better for women. They appear to have relatively equal advantages and disadvantages, and have no real effect on long term outcomes such as earning power or family outcomes.
That said, I agree that same-gender bonding is a good thing and should be encouraged. I think organizations and institutions that focus on providing a safe, supportive environment for girls or boys are a good thing. I’m just not convinced that the presence of a single pre-adolescent penis, for example, is all it’d take to completely unravel all the good provided by the Girl Scouts. Think about historically black colleges, for example. They can provide a lot of important things for the African-American people who attend them. However, every historically black college has a handful of non-black people attending. It doesn’t ruin the effect at all. In fact, it almost certainly strengthens the colleges in question.
Standard procedure for children exhibiting gender variance is to, as much as possible, give them the freedom to express their gender as they see fit, without pressure or disapproval. This is statistically correlated with the best outcomes later in life.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Your “simple solutions” in this case involve forcing others to do something they may not be comfortable with for a variety of valid reasons.
[/QUOTE]
How so? To begin with, Girl Scouts has a policy allowing transwomen to join. If you join a voluntary organization with their rules for membership clearly stated, I don’t think it’s “forcing” you to do anything if you suddenly decide you object to the rules for membership that were in place when you were joined.
And what are the “variety of valid reasons” a person might object. A seven year old is not going to rape the girls. He is not going to be oggling them. He may or may not be disruptive, but there is no reason to believe his penis automatically makes him more disruptive than any other prospective member, and he should be judged by his actual behavior rather than some off-the-cuff supposition.
Really, what are these “valid reasons?”
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Obviously people care, that’s why it’s in the newspaper.
[/QUOTE]
All kinds of dumb stuff in is the newspaper. Remember when gay scoutmasters were all going to destroy America? Remember how gay marriage is degrading the institution itself? And how gay servicemen are going to cause us to lose in Afghanistan or something? Newspapers love scare stories about people whose sexuality we don’t “get.”
On the other hand, what is the point of it being GIRL scouts?
On the other hand, this is why my mom enrolled us in campfire instead.
If the boy believes he is really a girl on the inside, I think they should definitely take him. If, however, he just likes the other kids, at some point the parents need to gently teach him about arbitrary and also non-arbitrary limits to group membership. It does exist.
If I were the parent, I’d probably sign him up for campfire and let him wear a dress there. If that didn’t make him happy, then it’s not about being a girl, or wearing a dress, but being with his sister. And while I empathize, I also think he has to learn at some point that he can’t do everything she does.
How is it a different issue? Either the policy is applied because he’s transgender, or it is not applicable because he is not.
I transitioned as an adult. But this reminds me of attending my sister’s Girl Scout meetings. I never applied to join (this was back in the 1960s), but I read the GS manual and took part in activities to the extent that it was feasible. It’s one of the few early pleasant memories from a lifetime of mostly pain.
Because the post I was replying to was suggesting the mother was asking GS to create policy for this child. I was clarifying that the policy was already in place for transgender children in general.
The thread was also debating whether this specific child was transgender. I didn’t want to add to the debate about whether this child was being pushed by the mother.
However, its important to note that there is a huge difference between “joining Girl Scouts” and “becoming a member of a troop.”
As a troop leader, I get to say no if I don’t want certain girls (or their parents) in my troop.
So this boy is free to join Girl Scouts, but may have issues being placed in a troop if a troop cannot be found that will accept him. He may need to be a Juliette, which isn’t at all unusual.
(Personally, I have some issues with this, but we’ve had troops in our council decide not to accept immigrant Somali girls because culturally, they don’t sell cookies and it creates a drag on the troop).
And as for camp, my daughter heads off to GS camp every year (this year for three weeks) and there are always boys at camp - counselor and camp director kids.
