Cookie Boycott- Tabitha Corrao

In California a fourteen year old girl by the name of Taylor began a boycott against the Girl Scouts Organization. As a Girl Scout herself, Taylor was displeased to find out the Girl Scout Organization is allowing transgendered males into Girl Scouts. Taylor was taught by the Girl Scouts that when she seen something she disagreed with, she needed to take action and try to change it. Taylor took action by making a video about her issue with the Girl Scouts’ action and launching a boycott against buying Girl Scout cookies.

Taylor’s argument is that the GSUSA is breaking its own safety rules and is go against its own research findings to accommodate transgender boys. One of Taylor’s supports is that the Girl Scouts’ policy is the following “Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members,” implying that boys are not welcomed into the organization. When in reality the policy states “If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.” Nowhere does the policy imply males are not welcomed into the organization.

This entry was posted in X Archive 2012. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Cookie Boycott- Tabitha Corrao

  1. davidbdale says:

    Tabitha, your first paragraph seems straightforward enough. It is certainly careful to not say too much and to be clear. On the other hand, it “begs the question” to call Bobby Montoya a “transgendered male” because whether he’s male of female for the purpose of scouting is exactly the point being debated. The Scouts admitted Bobby because she presents as a girl. Taylor would ban him from scouting, at least from girl scouting, because he’s a boy who only wishes he were a girl.

    I like how clearly you state that Taylor objects to the GSUSA’s violation of its own safety policies. But you skip right past any analysis of the validity of her argument and go directly instead to another claim about inclusiveness.

    You do find two sources that make contradictory statements about boys and girls, but the one you identify as the “real” policy is one person’s remark, while the other is from an historical mission statement. You might lose your argument on the grounds of who has the more authoritative source.

    Either way, what Taylor objects to is the very policy blurriness these two sources illustrate. “The pledge says one thing,” Taylor claims, “and when the chapters violate the pledge, the current Scout leadership changes the pledge. That’s dishonest.”

    For top grades you need to draw your lines more clearly, Tabitha.

    Grade Recorded

  2. tcorrao says:

    I have a question reguarding our topic. Are we looking to prove something or to discuss it?

    • davidbdale says:

      That’s a perfectly reasonable question, Tabitha. Every research paper eventually proves a thesis of some kind, but usually the thesis evolves out of the research. During the preliminary stage, while you’re still reading broadly in the topic hoping for inspiration, you only have questions and theories. I would imagine that’s where you’ll be on Thursday.

      Ideally, you’ll have come across a mystery of some sort: a question that doesn’t seem to be answered, or a bit of common knowledge that doesn’t actually sound reasonable when you give it a second thought. If there’s no such intriguing question in the preliminary research you’ve done, you either aren’t open to the mysteries, or you’ve chosen a topic that doesn’t truly interest you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s