The non-optional communniny
Behold: a guide to “inclusive scouting”:
A framework for advancing inclusion and belonging that is rooted in the Scout Oath and Law can guide our actions as we move between the different kinds of knowing. But what other guidelines and actions can facilitate inclusion and belonging in alignment with these values? In this section, we offer best-practices and guidelines to help further advance inclusion and belonging in our movement.
…
Meet people where they are. Given the discriminatory history of the BSA, chances are high that not everyone is committed to advancing inclusion and belonging in our movement. Those people are who we should be striving to speak with the most! It is important that we create opportunities for strong relationships and honest communication so that everyone has the opportunity to learn, challenge old habits, and live Scouting’s deepest values.
Always start with “yes”. If someone asks if they belong in Scouting, even though they’re a girl, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, an atheist, agnostic, or humanist, a person with a disability, or a refugee — and you hesitate — you’ve already made them feel like they don’t belong.
Ok, but what if they’re a bully or a boy who hates girls or a religious fanatic?
That’s one question, but I have another. Notice that there’s only one category that is a “community” as opposed to a simple noun.
I suppose that’s because it takes too long to say gay lesbian and then all the other labels. But the result is that lesbians and men who call themselves lesbians are lumped together into a community with trans people whether they want to be or not, and Scouts are trained to think of them as a community whether it makes any sense or not. It’s kind of like being married off whether you want to be or not. If you’re gay, sorry, you’re drafted into this invented “community” without your consent.
The guide references the BSA, so it’s now out of date. After 114 years of being the Boy Scouts of America the name has recently been changed to Scouting America. I only know this from a Telegraph article about the Scouts (no longer Boy Scouts) in the UK being taught about pronouns use by means of a card game, Pronoun Pairs. The whole thing is ridiculous.
I can see that going down well well at home. “Good morning Timmy.” “Good morning, carer, is grown-up taking me and sibling fishing today?”
Yes, it’s normal for it to feel awkward and forced because it is awkward and forced, you idiots.
Ah, the old sales mantra; ‘persistence removes resistance’.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/02/scouts-under-fire-teaching-eight-year-old-boys-pronoun-game/
[…] a comment by Acolyte of Sagan on The non-optional […]
“Ok, but what if they’re a bully or a boy who hates girls or a religious fanatic?”
Well put. It seems that inclusion of specific groups is often presented as “including everyone,” presumably because it sounds more virtuous. Whenever I see an “Everyone is welcome” sign in front of a store, I wonder how they could possibly mean it – what if, for instance, someone has a restraining order against an employee? More interestingly, keeping in mind that these signs are actually referring to some particular groups, what about individuals who would make these feel unwelcome? For example, suppose that you have a bunch of people who keep ranting to themselves about homosexuality being evil and depraved. If you let them in, most homosexuals probably wouldn’t feel welcome. But if you don’t allow the bigots to enter, then surely THEY’re not welcome. The two cannot be conciliated.
Of course, I expect that such signs are not put up for their actual message. It’s a prop. It’s advertising your righteousness to an audience which, funnily enough, is mostly made of people who are not “members” of the “LGBTQ+” “community.”
So true. It’s also telling anyone who doesn’t like it to stay out. “We are inclusive, which means we don’t include Karens, or GC feminists, or lesbians who won’t sleep with trans women, or….ad infinitum.