7-year-old transgender child closes down Girl Scout troops

[Drolefille]

'

I'm sorry - I have no idea how this ties into anything that I'm saying.

You know - (and this is a general statement - not directed at just you, Penguin), I relate to and am very interested in Native Americans. I could change my name, begin practicing NA religions, integrate into NA society, adapt traditional dress, hairstyles, etc, and call myself a Native American. I may even be so sincere and convincing that other people think I AM Native American. Heck, I could become a NA activist and speak in front of Congress about their ("our") rights and benefits. But when push came to shove, and I tried to collect benefits, I'd be turned down. Why? Because genetically I am not Native American (well, actually, I'm 1/32nd NA but that doesn't qualify for benefits).

Would that make me a "fake?" Would it make me insincere? Would that impede my integration into NA society? Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is, I may want to be a native American - but I'm not. Is that fair? Is it unfair? Does it hurt my feelings and make my life difficult? It is what it is. I can choose to live my dream, my reality, if I want to, but my options will always be somewhat limited.

Race is different than gender. You might compare race to sex and gender to culture here. But still the comparison is poor.

 

[Draka]

I do actually understand Draka's point here in that nothing the 7 year old did actually shut anything else down. A gunman actively caused the gun to fire the bullet to hit and the heart to stop. The 7 year old was just apparently living her life, and it was the actions of other troop leaders in another state that caused it to shut down.

I'd argue the gunman has responsibility for the death of the victim, but that there's no responsibility on Bobby for the shutdown of the other troop. Even a "Controversy over transgendered 7 year old..." would make a bit more sense there.

It's not always worth arguing over, but I don't think that Draka, or anyone else here, is incapable of understanding cause and effect. It's just that there's a point at which to stop it. Otherwise all headlines would go "Big Bang causes car accident."

Yes, thank you.
It's not there there isn't a progression of cause and effect, but at what point to stop it. Bobby didn't cause anything unless you want to blame her desire to be a Girl Scout. What about the Colorado chapter of Girl Scouts for accepting Bobby and making the statement they did? Are they to blame for the shut down of those three troops? I don't see how, as they haven't anything to do with how Louisiana runs their chapter. No, the blame for the troops shutting down, at least in my opinion, falls squarely on the shoulders of the troop leaders who decided to shut them down and quit. No fault but theirs.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, thank you.
It's not there there isn't a progression of cause and effect, but at what point to stop it. Bobby didn't cause anything unless you want to blame her desire to be a Girl Scout. What about the Colorado chapter of Girl Scouts for accepting Bobby and making the statement they did? Are they to blame for the shut down of those three troops? I don't see how, as they haven't anything to do with how Louisiana runs their chapter. No, the blame for the troops shutting down, at least in my opinion, falls squarely on the shoulders of the troop leaders who decided to shut them down and quit. No fault but theirs.

Did they shut down the troops or did they just resign as troop leaders?

 

[Kathryn]

Race is different than gender. You might compare race to sex and gender to culture here. But still the comparison is poor.

I'm talking about DNA and physiological qualities, not gender. Gender is more psychological, sex is more physiological.

 

[Drolefille]

Did they shut down the troops or did they just resign as troop leaders?

By leaving they closed the troop.

I'm talking about DNA and physiological qualities, not gender. Gender is more psychological, sex is more physiological.

Which is the distinction we're making. DNA doesn't make one a man or a woman, it makes them male or female (usually.) Physiology isn't that simple either but even if we pretend it is, this is about gender. No one does a DNA test on every person to enter the bathroom or join a single sex organization.

 

[Father Heathen]

'

I'm sorry - I have no idea how this ties into anything that I'm saying.

You know - (and this is a general statement - not directed at just you, Penguin), I relate to and am very interested in Native Americans. I could change my name, begin practicing NA religions, integrate into NA society, adapt traditional dress, hairstyles, etc, and call myself a Native American. I may even be so sincere and convincing that other people think I AM Native American. Heck, I could become a NA activist and speak in front of Congress about their ("our") rights and benefits. But when push came to shove, and I tried to collect benefits, I'd be turned down. Why? Because genetically I am not Native American (well, actually, I'm 1/32nd NA but that doesn't qualify for benefits).

Would that make me a "fake?" Would it make me insincere? Would that impede my integration into NA society? Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is, I may want to be a native American - but I'm not. Is that fair? Is it unfair? Does it hurt my feelings and make my life difficult? It is what it is. I can choose to live my dream, my reality, if I want to, but my options will always be somewhat limited.

Wow. What a pisspoor analogy. Perhaps you've missed my earlier post, so allow me to quote it:

I knew a girl who turned out to be a pseudohermaphrodite and didn't discover it until she was 17 that technically she was a male with XY chromosomes. Yes despite this she still continued living as a woman.

Gender goes beyond genetics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

'

I'm sorry - I have no idea how this ties into anything that I'm saying.

You know - (and this is a general statement - not directed at just you, Penguin), I relate to and am very interested in Native Americans. I could change my name, begin practicing NA religions, integrate into NA society, adapt traditional dress, hairstyles, etc, and call myself a Native American. I may even be so sincere and convincing that other people think I AM Native American. Heck, I could become a NA activist and speak in front of Congress about their ("our") rights and benefits. But when push came to shove, and I tried to collect benefits, I'd be turned down. Why? Because genetically I am not Native American (well, actually, I'm 1/32nd NA but that doesn't qualify for benefits).

Would that make me a "fake?" Would it make me insincere? Would that impede my integration into NA society? Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is, I may want to be a native American - but I'm not. Is that fair? Is it unfair? Does it hurt my feelings and make my life difficult? It is what it is. I can choose to live my dream, my reality, if I want to, but my options will always be somewhat limited.

There is HUGE difference between ethnic groups and sex and gender though. Gender is purely a social construct, while ethnic groups to an extent incorporate biology as a part of their heritage. Sex is purely biological but it's still difficult to build a definition that would exclude someone Bobby or myself (or some other posters here both past and present) because it really can't be done. You can't go by the ability to reproduce, you can't go by chromosomes, you can't go by genitals, and you can't go by birth. And these are refering to people who are not transsexual but regular people who fail to meet the "normal" definitions for whatever reason but are included anyways.
You would not be considered Native American because you do not share the biological heritage. Being considered a man or woman is strictly how society interprets it and for obvious reasons should be independent of biology. If it does include biology, what gender do we refer to people who have a single X chromosome and nothing more? Or XXY or XXXY chromosomes? Or what of people's whose genitals do not really match typical male or female genitals?
But speaking of Native Americans, many Native tribes had/have no problems with "two-spirits" as they call transsexual individuals, and even held them in high regards. Some tribes even consider it good-fortune to be married to such an individual. But many of them considered someone who crossed gender-boundaries to be a blessing. There are even accounts of European soldiers being defeated in battle by women warriors who had assumed male roles in their society. But actually there are many societies that welcomes transsexuals as normal people, and view them as being no different than anyone else.

 

[Draka]

Did they shut down the troops or did they just resign as troop leaders?

They disbanded their troops completely. They could have requested for new leaders to be found for the troops, but they didn't. They just disbanded them. To me that shows that they didn't care enough about the girls to ensure that their best interests were served, instead of what they felt was in the best interest for themselves.

The fact of the matter is, the OP, the issue at hand, is that 3 troops in a completely different state were disbanded by three women who had issues with a Girl Scout chapter in Colorado. Their move of protest, which is exactly what it was, doesn't make them look "moral" or make the Colorado chapter look bad. It makes them look ignorant and it only hurts the girls who lost their troops. If they felt they couldn't personally associate with the organization as a whole, then that was their decision to make, no matter how ignorance based it was, BUT as troop leaders they should have at least felt some kind of responsibility to their girls to see if the girls wanted to remain in their troops and just get them a different leader.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They disbanded their troops completely. They could have requested for new leaders to be found for the troops, but they didn't. They just disbanded them. To me that shows that they didn't care enough about the girls to ensure that their best interests were served, instead of what they felt was in the best interest for themselves.

The fact of the matter is, the OP, the issue at hand, is that 3 troops in a completely different state were disbanded by three women who had issues with a Girl Scout chapter in Colorado. Their move of protest, which is exactly what it was, doesn't make them look "moral" or make the Colorado chapter look bad. It makes them look ignorant and it only hurts the girls who lost their troops. If they felt they couldn't personally associate with the organization as a whole, then that was their decision to make, no matter how ignorance based it was, BUT as troop leaders they should have at least felt some kind of responsibility to their girls to see if the girls wanted to remain in their troops and just get them a different leader.

I doubt they really cared for the girls or they would have found a new troop leader. It's one thing to respectfully quit over a perceived moral issue and make sure your former troop will continue, but it's another thing to disappoint people and put up an obstacle for people to continue seeing their friends because your head is stuck up your ***.

 

[Draka]

I doubt they really cared for the girls or they would have found a new troop leader. It's one thing to respectfully quit over a perceived moral issue and make sure your former troop will continue, but it's another thing to disappoint people and put up an obstacle for people to continue seeing their friends because your head is stuck up your ***.

Unfortunately, I think such women thought that since they found the issue in Colorado immoral or what-have-you, that somehow they were "saving" the girls by disbanding the troops. Either one or the other. Either they didn't want to have anything to do with Girl Scouts anymore and just decided to dissolve the troops entirely, to hell with what the girls wanted, OR they thought they were doing some great good for the girls by getting them away from the "evils" of Girl Scouts. Either way...they look like ignorant fools.

 

[Kathryn]

Wow. What a pisspoor analogy. Perhaps you've missed my earlier post, so allow me to quote it:



Gender goes beyond genetics.

I didn't miss you earlier analogy. That's why I made a distinction between anomalies, gender, and biological differences between the sexes.

I am discussing biological differences and making the point that at some point we have to take biological differences into consideration. It's not ALL about what gender we identify with, and hence my reference to sports participation which is grouped by sex (not gender).

 

[Kathryn]

Which is the distinction we're making. DNA doesn't make one a man or a woman, it makes them male or female (usually.) Physiology isn't that simple either but even if we pretend it is, this is about gender. No one does a DNA test on every person to enter the bathroom or join a single sex organization.

Exactly, and I agree with this as well. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying, regarding sex and gender.

Hence my question - how did the Girl Scout troop even KNOW the sex (as opposed to GENDER) of Bobby? Bobby looks and acts like a girl. Why did the mother even feel a need to make an issue regarding the sex of the child if Bobby presents as a girl?

 

[Penumbra]

Exactly, and I agree with this as well. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying, regarding sex and gender.

Hence my question - how did the Girl Scout troop even KNOW the sex (as opposed to GENDER) of Bobby? Bobby looks and acts like a girl. Why did the mother even feel a need to make an issue regarding the sex of the child if Bobby presents as a girl?

When one joins, do they check legal name or anything like that?

I was never a scout, so I don't know.

 

[Drolefille]

When one joins, do they check legal name or anything like that?

I was never a scout, so I don't know.

Probably not, my guess is that a) this is a new thing to the mom based on her struggle with pronouns and b) she probably asked the GSA possibly out of an attempt to protect her daughter from harassment or just plain old disappointment.

We can only speculate. It might have come up because someone in that troop raised the question and the troop leaders/GSA gave their response. It's also possible that Bobby doesn't always 'pass' or that some of the girls knew her as a boy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hence my question - how did the Girl Scout troop even KNOW the sex (as opposed to GENDER) of Bobby? Bobby looks and acts like a girl. Why did the mother even feel a need to make an issue regarding the sex of the child if Bobby presents as a girl?

Sometimes parents ask in order to avoid controversy.
(Sometimes it seems better not to.)
When my son joined Cub Scouts, I asked if his being non-religious would be a problem.
Turned out to be no issue at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'

I'm sorry - I have no idea how this ties into anything that I'm saying.

And I'm not sure why we should take Olympic rules as some sort of authority on how we should or shouldn't view things in other areas of life. You seem to be suggesting that their rules should be taken as some sort of Gospel about how we view gender.

In reality, the rules aren't about determining in a hard-and-fast way who is male and who is female. What the Olympic rules are about is keeping out cheaters: men who would pretend to be women in order to gain an unfair advantage in an event. The rules are geared toward making sure that all such people are screened out, and even if it means a few honestly transgendered people are screened out, too bad: the IOC has no way to tell a person who is truly transgendered from someone who undergoes sex reassignment surgery solely to cheat (as has happened in the past, hence the IOC's rules about this sort of thing), so it keeps out both. It's not interested in fairness of gender determination; it's interested in fairness on the sporting field, and nothing else.

You know - (and this is a general statement - not directed at just you, Penguin), I relate to and am very interested in Native Americans. I could change my name, begin practicing NA religions, integrate into NA society, adapt traditional dress, hairstyles, etc, and call myself a Native American. I may even be so sincere and convincing that other people think I AM Native American. Heck, I could become a NA activist and speak in front of Congress about their ("our") rights and benefits. But when push came to shove, and I tried to collect benefits, I'd be turned down. Why? Because genetically I am not Native American (well, actually, I'm 1/32nd NA but that doesn't qualify for benefits).

Would that make me a "fake?" Would it make me insincere? Would that impede my integration into NA society? Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is, I may want to be a native American - but I'm not. Is that fair? Is it unfair? Does it hurt my feelings and make my life difficult? It is what it is. I can choose to live my dream, my reality, if I want to, but my options will always be somewhat limited.

So you've decided a priori that gender is something that you're born with that can't be changed? Your analogy assumes a specific approach to this issue when the whole matter we're discussing is what approach is appropriate. IOW, you're begging the question.

 

[Kathryn]

And I'm not sure why we should take Olympic rules as some sort of authority on how we should or shouldn't view things in other areas of life. You seem to be suggesting that their rules should be taken as some sort of Gospel about how we view gender.

The Olympics are just one example of an area of society in which sex is important, and gender and sex can't be interchangeable. I didn't say anything about the Olympic rules being any sort of authority on how we should view things in other areas of life. Good grief.

But the Bobbys of the world, and those who love them, must accept the fact that when your claimed gender doesn't match your DNA, some situations and choices are going to definitely be limited, just as many other options are limited by physiology. And they should be.

My question, as a parent, was legitimate - would a parent have the right to be concerned about whether or not her 12 year old daughter was sharing a tent or a shower with someone who has a penis? Is this appropriate? You are concerned about Bobby's rights - what about the rights of the other kids and the other parents, who have legitimate concerns about intimate situations?

In reality, the rules aren't about determining in a hard-and-fast way who is male and who is female.

I guess this is your opinion. I guess we'd have to ask an Olympic official about the intent.

What the Olympic rules are about is keeping out cheaters: men who would pretend to be women in order to gain an unfair advantage in an event.

Why do you think it's just about keeping out "cheaters?" Would Bobby be a "cheater" if she grew up as female, identified as female, was involved in all female groups for years, and then wanted, understandably, to compete as a woman in an Olympic sport?

the IOC has no way to tell a person who is truly transgendered from someone who undergoes sex reassignment surgery solely to cheat (as has happened in the past, hence the IOC's rules about this sort of thing), so it keeps out both.

You know why they have no way of knowing? Because the definitions and legalities regarding transgendered persons are not consistent and well defined, and the reason why is because each situation is so unique and such a volatile mixture of psychology, sexuality, and physiology.

It's not interested in fairness of gender determination; it's interested in fairness on the sporting field, and nothing else.

And I believe that parents have legitimate concerns regarding their minor childrens' exposure to different SEXES, as well as gender issues.

So you've decided a priori that gender is something that you're born with that can't be changed?

Where do you get this idea? What I'm pretty sure of though is that physiologically, sex can be determined. Whether or not people accept the sex they are born with is a whole other matter. And in very rare cases, I do believe that the actual determination of sex can be complicated due to physical anomalies. But those cases are extremely rare and do not coincide well with the ratio of people who have gender identity issues.

 

[Drolefille]

The Olympics are just one example of an area of society in which sex is important, and gender and sex can't be interchangeable. I didn't say anything about the Olympic rules being any sort of authority on how we should view things in other areas of life. Good grief.

it is the only example you've come up with, Charlie Brown.

But the Bobbys of the world, and those who love them, must accept the fact that when your claimed gender doesn't match your DNA, some situations and choices are going to definitely be limited, just as many other options are limited by physiology. And they should be.

What activities besides sport questionably and giving birth are limited due to one's DNA derived sex?

My question, as a parent, was legitimate - would a parent have the right to be concerned about whether or not her 12 year old daughter was sharing a tent or a shower with someone who has a penis? Is this appropriate? You are concerned about Bobby's rights - what about the rights of the other kids and the other parents, who have legitimate concerns about intimate situations?

1. do you ask all the girls about their genitals or are you just assuming that they're all cis and have vulvas and vaginas?
2. if Bobby is heterosexual then she will have no interest any other girl
3. do you demand to know the sexual orientations of all kids in the groups your child is a member of?
4. Trans kids and teens are for more likely to be the victims of rape or assault than the perpetrators.

ultimately your argument is like people demanding to know if a kid is HIV positive because they think they have a "right" to know. You don't have a right to know anything. Just like other parents don't get to know the state of your daughter's genitals.

I guess this is your opinion. I guess we'd have to ask an Olympic official about the intent.

no that's pretty much what the stated intent has been...

Why do you think it's just about keeping out "cheaters?" Would Bobby be a "cheater" if she grew up as female, identified as female, was involved in all female groups for years, and then wanted, understandably, to compete as a woman in an Olympic sport?

Nope, which is why trans groups argue about the stringency of the rules.

And I believe that parents have legitimate concerns regarding their minor childrens' exposure to different SEXES, as well as gender issues.

And keep them away from gay people so i don't have to explain that to them either. Seriously how hard is it to say that sometimes people feel like they're a boy even though they were born looking like they're a girl.

Where do you get this idea? What I'm pretty sure of though is that physiologically, sex can be determined. Whether or not people accept the sex they are born with is a whole other matter. And in very rare cases, I do believe that the actual determination of sex can be complicated due to physical anomalies. But those cases are extremely rare and do not coincide well with the ratio of people who have gender identity issues.

Because he is talking about GENDER , which is distinct from sex.

 

[Kathryn]

What activities besides sport questionably and giving birth are limited due to one's DNA derived sex?

Sports "questionably?" Sports absolutely. Male and female bodies differ significantly.

Any group which is based on physical abilities would come to mind (breastfeeding is another, for example). But also - any group in which a parent might safely assume that everyone's genitals are of the same sex. The reason why I keep bringing this up is that I believe it is ANY parents' right to limit their child's exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex (note - not GENDER - SEX), to what they deem as suitable. Most parents don't mind their kids sharing a shower or a bed or a tent with other kids of the same sex, but may feel quite differently if they realize that their child will be around nudity involving the opposite sex. Before we get all anecdotal, let's try to be realistic - whether you agree or not personally, wouldn't you agree that there are MANY parents out there who don't want their little females sleeping or showering with little males? Is this WRONG of them?

do you ask all the girls about their genitals or are you just assuming that they're all cis and have vulvas and vaginas?

I'd assume that if they looked and acted and dressed like a little girl, they were a little girl. But if I suddenly discovered they had a penis and testicles, I would not let them bathe or shower or sleep in the same bed with my daughters once they hit the preteen age of 8 or so (it's not an issue with toddlers or infants, of course).

And as a parent, I would be TICKED OFF if I wasn't informed about a member of a troop, and suddenly my 12 daughter came home from summer camp talking about her roommate's penis.

if Bobby is heterosexual then she will have no interest any other girl

Bobby's a bit young for this to be determined either way. And as stated earlier, with kids this age, I don't much care what little kids do or how they act - but what's the cutoff?

Frankly, none of us knows whether Bobby is homosexual or heterosexual. We won't know for awhile. Of course, we never know with any kids, but the odds are that most kids are heterosexual. The vast majority of Scouts are heterosexual, meaning that as they mature, most kids in same sex troops won't have to be concerned about same sex overtures or assaults by their fellow troops, or any sort of exposure to sexuality that their parents may consider inappropriate for their age.

do you demand to know the sexual orientations of all kids in the groups your child is a member of?

I never had to demand to know. I was always very open about sex education, sexuality, etc with my kids - at age appropriate times. As my kids grew up sexually, I introduced them to new concepts and ideas, and willingly discussed any questions they came up with on their own. Sexuality was never much of an issue till they hit about 10 - 12 (each child is different). I made sure my kids understood personal parameters and values, and the importance of safeguarding those.

That being said, I would not knowingly or willingly place them in a situation which undermined the values of our household. Kids have to grow into and mature into their own set of values. Until that time, it's up to the parents to guide and guard their children.

Trans kids and teens are for more likely to be the victims of rape or assault than the perpetrators.

Interesting choice of words. I believe there are more than two groups at play - kids aren't EITHER trans or perpetrator. The vast majority of kids are neither.

That being said, there are more sexual assaults and rapes committed by those with a penis than by those without.

ultimately your argument is like people demanding to know if a kid is HIV positive because they think they have a "right" to know. You don't have a right to know anything. Just like other parents don't get to know the state of your daughter's genitals.

I have a right to know whether or not my kids are sleeping or showering with those of the opposite sex. Just because you don't believe I have that right doesn't mean I don't.

And keep them away from gay people so i don't have to explain that to them either. Seriously how hard is it to say that sometimes people feel like they're a boy even though they were born looking like they're a girl.

Over the course of my life, I've had four sets of very close friends who were gay - two sets of men and two sets of women. My children grew up around them and the feelings of affection and respect were and still are mutual.

I have no problem explaining that some people feel like the opposite sex, and that we need to respect people's rights and differences, even if we don't agree with or understand their choices or lifestyles.

I draw the line, however, at situations which are likely to involve nudity or intimacy. This is my biggest issue with the whole Scouts thing, because so often Scouting activities involve overnight trips and close quarters.

Because he is talking about GENDER , which is distinct from sex.

NO ****???!!! Hey, I've been talking about sex, which is distinct from gender.

It's extremely difficult to separate the two, as Bobby's case so succinctly illustrates.

 

[Drolefille]

Sports "questionably?" Sports absolutely. Male and female bodies differ significantly.

As noted previously approximately 2 years of hormone therapy removes the advantage of being male bodied in a female sport. Genital surgery has no effect on one's performance. That' is why the Olympics is criticized for their requirements. An expensive surgery shouldn't be required.

Any group which is based on physical abilities would come to mind (breastfeeding is another, for example).

So bearing and feeding children and that's pretty much it then?

But also - any group in which a parent might safely assume that everyone's genitals are of the same sex.

Your choice to assume that everyone you know is cis is not the fault of a trans individuals around you. It's called privilege.

The reason why I keep bringing this up is that I believe it is ANY parents' right to limit their child's exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex (note - not GENDER - SEX), to what they deem as suitable.Most parents don't mind their kids sharing a shower or a bed or a tent with other kids of the same sex, but may feel quite differently if they realize that their child will be around nudity involving the opposite sex.

Are you imagining girl scout camping trips with group showers and everyone stripping and changing in front of each other and sleeping naked or something?
Particularly for younger kids, they're just barely overnights and everyone goes and changes in the bathrooms or alone in their tents/cabins and no one really showers because they stayed up all night and will go home and shower. For older kids who like their privacy more they're also not showering together as a general rule. Most high schools seem to have gotten away from the idea as well for privacy as well as transgender, ADA and other issues. No one really wants to shower in a big room full of other people no matter what their gender or sex.

Before we get all anecdotal, let's try to be realistic - whether you agree or not personally, wouldn't you agree that there are MANY parents out there who don't want their little females sleeping or showering with little males? Is this WRONG of them?

"Whether you agree or not personally, wouldn't you agree that there are MANY parents who don't want their little straight girls sleeping or showering with little lesbian girls?" People's misconceptions and assumptions don't give them rights to know whether my child is cis or trans, gay or straight, etc. If they want to be "that" parent and pull their child from GSA due to the possibility that there could be a trans girl as a member, then they can be that.

I'd assume that if they looked and acted and dressed like a little girl, they were a little girl. But if I suddenly discovered they had a penis and testicles, I would not let them bathe or shower or sleep in the same bed with my daughters once they hit the preteen age of 8 or so (it's not an issue with toddlers or infants, of course).

Most 8 year olds aren't showering together anymore anyway. But if it concerns you so much I'd suggest making a blanket rule rather than trying to play genital police.

And as a parent, I would be TICKED OFF if I wasn't informed about a member of a troop, and suddenly my 12 daughter came home from summer camp talking about her roommate's penis.

Again, would you have this reaction about ANYTHING else? ANYTHING at all? Sexual orientation? HIV status? There is no reason that your daugher would see the genitals of any other troop member. (You wouldn't be ticked off if your daughter came home talking about her roommate's vulva?) Unreasonable freak-outs and the safety of the trans child is why other parents don't get told. It's private medical information. HIPAA may actually prevent a troop from telling you even it wasn't a horrible invasion of privacy. I can't write down the HIV status of any of my clients for example, much less tell you who's positive or negative.

Bobby's a bit young for this to be determined either way. And as stated earlier, with kids this age, I don't much care what little kids do or how they act - but what's the cutoff?

Frankly, none of us knows whether Bobby is homosexual or heterosexual. We won't know for awhile. Of course, we never know with any kids, but the odds are that most kids are heterosexual. The vast majority of Scouts are heterosexual, meaning that as they mature, most kids in same sex troops won't have to be concerned about same sex overtures or assaults by their fellow troops, or any sort of exposure to sexuality that their parents may consider inappropriate for their age.

Yeah, no. First off there are plenty of lesbian and bisexual girl scouts. There are gay boyscouts too but they're not technically allowed. Yes it's proportionally small, however in any given troop you probably have at least one. Secondly what kind of sexuality do you think parents are going to consider inappropriate that will occur due to the presence of a trans girl? Part of this is what chaperones are for - to prevent anything from happening no matter the composition of the group - and part of this is parental naivete. Kids are going to expose each other to all sorts of inappropriate stuff, particularly when they have older siblings, they'll talk about all sorts of things but they're unlikely to start a pre-teen orgy at the girl scout camp. Parents don't have control over that other than isolating their kid completely.

Excluding or separating Bobby only draws attention and raises questions. If you treat Bobby like the girl she is, particularly from a young age, the other troop members are FAR more likely just to accept her and not make a big fuss.

I never had to demand to know. I was always very open about sex education, sexuality, etc with my kids - at age appropriate times. As my kids grew up sexually, I introduced them to new concepts and ideas, and willingly discussed any questions they came up with on their own. Sexuality was never much of an issue till they hit about 10 - 12 (each child is different). I made sure my kids understood personal parameters and values, and the importance of safeguarding those.

That has nothing to do with knowing the sexual orientation of your child's playmates.

That being said, I would not knowingly or willingly place them in a situation which undermined the values of our household. Kids have to grow into and mature into their own set of values. Until that time, it's up to the parents to guide and guard their children.

Which are apparently not being around transgendered individuals? I mean really?

Interesting choice of words. I believe there are more than two groups at play - kids aren't EITHER trans or perpetrator. The vast majority of kids are neither.

I have no idea how you got that from what I was saying.

I have a right to know whether or not my kids are sleeping or showering with those of the opposite sex. Just because you don't believe I have that right doesn't mean I don't.

Just because you think you have that right doesn't mean you do?
Unless you're DNA testing all her friends, you don't know. You've set the rule that your kids must sleep with someone of the same gender and assumed that gender and sex are the same. When faced with the fact that they're different, you're trying to say that the rule was sex the whole time. But you don't know the biological sex of anyone whose chromosomes you haven't tested (genitals don't even address this fully as being intersex isn't always physically obvious.)

Gender's not an unreasonable rule, but you can't assume that your assumptions are the same as everyone else's or that they reflect reality.

Over the course of my life, I've had four sets of very close friends who were gay - two sets of men and two sets of women. My children grew up around them and the feelings of affection and respect were and still are mutual.

I have no problem explaining that some people feel like the opposite sex, and that we need to respect people's rights and differences, even if we don't agree with or understand their choices or lifestyles.

Ok, I really think your problem is that you associate this with "choices and lifestyles" and nothing more.

I draw the line, however, at situations which are likely to involve nudity or intimacy. This is my biggest issue with the whole Scouts thing, because so often Scouting activities involve overnight trips and close quarters.

Then I hope you hold that rule as a standard across the board and not just when you think there are trans kids around.

Hey, I've been talking about sex, which is distinct from gender.

It's extremely difficult to separate the two, as Bobby's case so succinctly illustrates.

Only if you assume the two are the same. Doesn't seem hard to separate to me or to the other people here who are trying to educate you.