This particular Girl Scout does not make a very compelling argument. Several times she contradicts herself or stumbles over her own words. This being said there are portions of her claim that bring up cause for concern in the Girl Scout’s policies as an organization.
Early on she quotes the release that was made by the Girl Scouts of Colorado stating ”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,”. However later on she cites a statistic which shows that most girls feel they would better benefit from being in an all girl group. When we look at these statements side by side we can tell that they do not support her argument. If a person identifies as female and her parents identify her as such then most likely she will be viewed as one of the girls in a group of her peers. She also claims that the environment will not be nurturing or sensitive to girls’ needs if the Girl Scouts continue to accept transgender persons who identify as females. Again this all goes back to the fact that they are identifying themselves as girls, and would therefore doing all the things that most girls would do.
She claims that it would even be unsafe if they were to continue with this policy. But since these individuals identify themselves as females there would not be any infringement of the other girls’ safety. The basis of her claim is trying to define what exactly a girl is. Meaning does a “girl” need to simply feel like a girl and identify herself as a female or does it come down to having female anatomy. Furthermore what exactly is she suggesting the policy on gender become? The thought that little girls would need to provide visual proof of their gender is utterly sickening. But her poorly thought out arguments seem to suggest something similar to this. Even just how she refers to these individuals as “transgender boys” shows her ignorance on the subject.
She brings up asking where these Girl Scouts would sleep. They would sleep where all the other girls sleep because they are in fact girls. Obviously there would be problems with letting boys sleep in the same room as girls but because these transgender individuals identify themselves as girls there would be no moral dilemma or safety issue. All in all her arguments are ineffective, mainly due to the contradictory evidence that she uses as support. As stated before her flawed characterization of transgender people and logic that stumbles on itself lead the listener to believe (correctly) that she knows nothing about the topic which she is discussing. Based on how persuasive her argument is juxtaposed to how delicious Girl Scout cookies are I predict her call to action will remain wholly unanswered.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
Just a brief note to start, Bill. The important difference between “does not make a compelling argument” and “does not make a persuasive presentation” is that one is irrelevant to an examination of the quality of her reasoning, which we’re concerned with here.
Your third sentence says nothing three times. “Portions of her claim,” “cause for concern,” and “policies as an organization” tell us nothing about her claims, the concerns, or the policies. They easily could, and without having to spell out all the details. Finding that middle ground is the key to compelling writing. As an unrelated example: ” . . . but the EPA’s categorizing all SUVs as trucks could cause SUV manufacturers to re-design their vehicles on a different frame.” See how that could apply to the situation here?
Grammar Rule 7.
I understand your argument in P2, Bill, but you’re making me do too much of the work. Why not identify Taylor’s problem as definition issue. Taylor is pressing for a genital test, while the Girl Scouts are accepting less physical evidence of who’s a girl. An “all-girl” group means two different things to these groups. You circle that statement more than once. (You’ll get there in the following paragraph, but your reader needs it here.) Your explanation: “Again this all goes back to the fact that they are identifying themselves as girls” is mostly empty language.
Be careful about too many vague pronouns, Bill. Your third paragraph starts with She, it, they, this, these, and others. As for what she thinks the policy on gender should become, I don’t think Taylor would acknowledge that it needs to become anything. It is what it is. Girls are girls not boys who want to be girls. We can deny anyone who isn’t a girl. If they choose to prove they are girls, that’s their choice.
A general note about casual language in academic work, Bill. You’re not slangy, and I don’t require that you be particularly formal, but you should be more careful. Instead of “She brings up asking where these Girl Scouts would sleep” should really be: “She asks where these Girl Scouts would sleep.” A small detail, but these casual comments add up to a general sense that the work is sloppy. Another small example: when you say the argument is ineffective due to the contradictory evidence used as support, readers don’t know whether the argument fails because of the evidence or because it’s contradictory. Her argument fails because her evidence contradicts itself, maybe?
Grade Recorded
LikeLike
Just to clarify and answer your last question, yes what I was striving for was to show how her argument fails because her evidence contradicts itself. But, I did not want to use only this fact to debunk her argument. I might be a little vague here, what I am trying to say is that her argument does fail because its contradictory but her content is also nonsensical.
LikeLike
OK. In that case, an example of the contradictions would be helpful. If Taylor denies your claim that boys who identify as girls will be readily embraced as girls by their peers (clearly she would not), it’s pointless to tell her how she must feel. If at the she agrees with you that Girl Scouts will feel better in an “all-girl” group and rejects your claim that transgenders are girls, you can accuse her of being reactionary or of lacking empathy, but you can’t call her contradictory. Her two arguments are support one another. Am I missing something?
LikeLike