If cisgender girls can join the Boy Scouts, can cisgender boys join a girls sport team?

Equality under the law means.....??

 

So answer the questions presented. Why should women's sport be able to actively discriminate based on sex/gender?

 

And if it CHOOSES to allow only heterosexual kids? I doubt that you would be quite so unbothered.

 

What should I have done instead?

 

Correct, just like I think it's NOT acceptable to allow GIRLS to join a BOYS entity. Just like I think it's NOT acceptable to allow BOYS to join a GIRLS entity. I THINK that you have sufficient common sense to agree with me.

So is it still BOY SCOUTS if it allows girls?

Sure, but the team would cease to be a single sex team. If a girl joins a boys team, it is no longer a boys team.

 

So you're making the LEGAL distinction, right?

 

What makes you say that I'm "worked up over it?" I simply asked a question.

 

Of course, it's important to recognise that the Boy Scouts' FARCE decision to allow girls to join, was not due to government force, but totally voluntary. Although, one would assume that such a decision could surely only come about by force of government gun!

 

What does that have to do with what I posted? The boy scouts CHOOSING to allow girls has nothing to do with equality under the law. No other organization has to allow opposite sex just because the boy scouts CHOSE to.

 

I'm gonna go with not endangering the lives of participants. Based on your question it seems you're ok with males participating against females in the UFC. You must be a progressive, right???

 

Just so I understand, you're comparing inclusion (allowing girls to join the boy scouts) to discrimination (banning gays from joining)? There would be no good cause for banning gays from the boy scouts other than bigotry and hatred.

 

Sure, but the nature of the organisation can be changed. The BSA is no longer a "boys entity", it is now a "co-ed entity". You might not like the fact but since you don't run the organisation, you don't get tell them they can't change the nature of the organisation.

Loads of organisations have made a similar change over the decades. Scouting in the UK started that move in the 1970s for Venture Scouts and in the 1990s at the lower ages. I used to be in an archery club that went co-ed in the 1950s (IIRC). Some organisations will remain single-sex, either with valid reasons and/or against public opinion.

Is it still a running club if it allows wheelchair athletes? Is it still an Actors Guild if it allows singers and dancers? Is it still a gun club if it allows crossbows? The name doesn't determine the nature of the organisation, it only reflects it and may well reflect it's history as much as it's current nature.

That isn't what is happening though. This isn't just about an individual joining an organisation and everything changing as a result, it's about the organisation choosing to change who can join. Obviously sports teams will be in different circumstances to scouting, with league and competition rules to consider too. Some clubs will have multiple teams to cover both genders and different age-ranges, some sports can be and are co-ed in general and so would allow for co-ed teams.

The bottom line remains that each and every organisation is distinct and individual, and the leaders and members of each will make their own decisions on how the organisation operates.

 

Yes

 

I believe that these groups should be left alone to operate as they see fit. If others find an all boys/girls group objectionable or offensive, they should start a group that suits their ideology. Start the non-binary scouts if you want.

"Force" is the main issue here. I can respect any belief up to the point of it being forced on others.

 

I too have issue with people wanting to force things onto others. That goes for anti-gunners, those who are anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, religion, etc.

 

I am in 100% agreement. The abortion issue is an exception as both sides require force.

 

No one is forced the have an abortion. It's a choice. As it should be.

 

Then you entirely missed the point. I have always advocated that there not be reservations of privilege enforced by law. Always. In this case, women's sports that inherently discriminate. That isn't a progressive position fyi. It means that the paradigm of equal protection means just that. It wasn't ever designed to create reservations of segregated opportunity. And yet, sports seems to continue to be an accepted reservation because, well, you've said women cannot be competitive, right? And to highlight the problem, this progressive notion that you just need to "self identify" and poof, you're another gender, and folks have to respect that against, as you put it, risk of life of the participant. The discussion is about the fact you just can't have it both ways and still be equal. either we are, or because some folks, like you seemingly, believe that equality cannot be tolerated, advocate a system based entirely on a bias against equality and produce a reservation of privilege. That is the point here. If women can compete, they should. I have zero problem supporting that. But when you deliver a system that inherently discriminates so that women can openly demonstrate that they aren't willing to compete except in their own bubble, that's a real issue.

Think about this. Vanderbilt allowed one of their women's soccer players to participate in a mens football game this year. She kicked, and immediately high tailed it to the sidelines, abandoning ( or more likely just following the coach's order not to get involved in all the actual tackling part of the game. Is that the image you want for women? That they are so fragile that equality is simply a fabrication that has to be protected from the rest of the actual game?

And more, to the point about the MTF trans participating in the MMA for women. This is progressive policy tells us we must accept. Why? Self identification, right? And you don't seem to want to support that, and you also seem unwilling to then recognize the inherent discrimination of women's only areas that, as you yourself explain away is just "good for them" because it "protects" them. It all boils back to the question, are we equal, or aren't we?

 

Nice rant. So you support trans "women" participating in women's sports. How progressive of you.

 

I agree, but their point is that it is forced on the unborn.

 

Hmm.. That wasn't indicated by what I wrote, so why would you take the opportunity to actively mischaracterize what I wrote? Of, using your phrase, why lie about it?

 

It was very plain to see. If you didn't mean to convey such then I suggest you brush up on your communication skills

 

Cite the quote that you think meant this?

 

I said..."it seems you're ok with males participating against females in the UFC." You never denied such. So...are you or aren't you ok with males competing against females in the UFC? It requires a Yes or No answer. Do you have the balls to answer directly? We shall see...

 

I don't care.