Counterintuitivity

Although Taylor’s argument held some truth, it is overall weak and based on unenforced and irrelevant claims. She sounds more like she is trying to vilify the Girl Scout organization than the transgender scouts whom she is protesting. She starts off with “Girl Scouts is not being honest with us girls…” It’s probably about a minute into the video by the time she actually states the point of her argument, that people who are anatomically male should not be allowed in Girl Scouts.Although she goes to great lengths to attack the GSUSA organization for letting transgender children in, she seems to be afraid to directly attack transgender people, or even specify what she sees as wrong about being transgender, leaving her with the spineless cop-out of an argument: “There’s nothing wrong with them, but I don’t want them in my troop!”

Taylor’s always-informative text overlays such as “Transgender Girl Scout= boy who wants to be a girl”, and “boys reach puberty before 12^th grade” really just weaken her argument by insulting the viewers’ intelligence. Her tone is similarly abrasive and matter-of-factly insulting to the point that I would be hard pressed to agree with her upon the most logical of arguments.

One of Taylor’s most-used attacks against GSUSA the claim that they have been dishonest by allowing transgender boys into troupes across the country, but I don’t see any proof or evidence that this information was withheld from the girls in these troupes and their parents. If she had cited some example of a horrified pair of right-winger parents who had no idea that there was a transgender child in their daughter’s troupe, or had been lied to about the presence of transgender children, then her accusation of  dishonesty would be well-backed, but her focus on the GSUSA’s wrongdoings still circumvents her real moral objection against transgender kids.

A young lady, who has been a girl scout for eight years, feels as though Girl Scouts of the USA has not been honest to the American public. She has made it her duty to try an get people to boycott girl scout cookies. She begins with telling the rule of her girl scout club that they accept any member that is to be as girl whether its a he or she as long as they are accepted in life as a girl they will be allowed to be a member.

She argues the case of letting boys of the female type nature into the club by giving quotes and different facts from the club about situations that deal with this type of incident. She starts with the point made by her girl scout club that when she sees something wrong with the world she is to address it and try to change it. she feels that it is wrong that girl scout are letting boys in the club without informing they members of the girl scouts, as well as the parents of the members. She is more so disturbed by the fact that no one has been informed that there are transgender boys are already in the clubs.

As the word girl scouts to her mean “all girl” she feels as though to let a boy in even if they are transgender boys. With that being said she feels that some girl scout clubs might not be safe, she raises a questions asking where will transgender boys sleep at overnight? That’s to me is a very good point because anything can happen with a male or female even though the point is they are transgender boys.

In the girls scouts club it basically wants to be true to people and let them be who they are. If the code does say that boys of transgender is allowed I see nothing wrong with it. All of her points are not valid because if a boy wants to be in a scout but does not want to be a boy why not let them into a girl scout. I have nothing against boys wanting to become girls or even girls wanting to become boys. I don’t think a boycott is needed, and also i believe that he as a boy becoming or being a girl should be allowed to be in a girl scout if it expresses how he really feels about himself. Nobody has the right to judge people about what they want to be in life whether other people think its wrong or not.

There are other ways to view this matter and for her to stand up for what she believes in but the only valid point I see that she really has is that the club was not honest and that she should make a case about that not that they shouldn’t let boys in.

A teenage Girl Scout from California named Taylor has recently followed what she believes to be Girl Scout protocol — “to advocate for [her] beliefs and to discover, connect, and take action when [she] see[s] something [she] want[s] to change in the world” — by posting a video on YouTube, asking its viewers to boycott Girl Scout Cookies. She wants the general public to stop financially supporting the GSUSA because the organization, in her eyes, “is not being honest with [its] girls, its troupes, its leaders, its parents, or the American public” because of one reason: it is allowing transgender boys into the program, as long as a child and their family identify with the child as being a girl. The video has sparked a lot of controversy, and has been removed since it was originally uploaded. What is extremely interesting though, is that she chose to use that dedication to advocating her beliefs that the Girl Scouts program has taught her in an effort to undermine the entire organization.

The Girl Scout program is a great program for girls in the K-12 age range. Girls are able to learn how to work together to accomplish a task with a group of people, how to handle conflicts, how to sell, and how to respect the bond of family (since that’s essentially what a Girl Scout troop is). It also teaches girls how to make the most out of a small group in order to make an entire organization better. All of these skills are important life skills that not everyone learns at a young age; these girls are both privileged for attaining these skills so early, and also smart for consciously making the decision to be part of the Girl Scouts. But what is also one of the important aspects of being a Girl Scout is accepting people for their differences and tolerating those who are unlike yourself. If Taylor truly believed in the fundamentals of the Girl Scout organization and the principles that the program has taught her, she probably would not be so apt to refuse the acceptance of transgender boys into the GSUSA.

This is not to say that Taylor isn’t a true Girl Scout just because she feels uncomfortable with transgender boys being allowed to join troupes nationwide. That is an understandable argument to make, and she does so with many interesting points, both from her own thoughts and also from articles; she relays that not only do “families trust that the girls will be in an environment that is not only nurturing and sensitive to girls’ needs, but also safe for girls,” but also that “the top advantage of being in an all-girl group is that it allows you to relate to other girls because they are experiencing the same problems as you. You can talk about different things with girls that you just can’t with boys. You can just be yourself and who you are, not something that you’re not.” These arguments are really only relatable on an emotional basis, they don’t give substantial reason why a transgender boy shouldn’t be allowed to join a Girl Scout troupe. But she also provides a very thought-provoking question regarding overnight events: “So, if a man is not allowed to share a tent with girls, what would you call a twelfth grade boy who turns eighteen years old?” 

This is probably the most solid foundation on which she could build her argument; regardless of whether or not a boy identifies as a girl and should not be discriminated against for his/her life choices, it is unfair to subject anyone — girl or boy — unwillingly to a situation such as the one addressed in the question. It should be a topic that is agreed upon by all parties involved — if a transgender boy is to be allowed in a troupe, all members of that troupe must agree that they feel comfortable being in that tight-knit environment with that person. Obviously, this is discrimination, that someone has to be somewhat “voted into” a troupe based on their sexual identity — it truly is unfair to that person — but until we live in a society where homosexuality and transgender identities are accepted fully by the entire population, it is impossible for GSUSA (or any other organization facing similar issues) to please absolutely everyone.

Taylor’s plea to boycott Girl Scout cookies is seen to many as a campaign against transgender people and their lifestyle. And that could perhaps be her point-of-view, however, she does not state anywhere in the video that she hates transgender people and that she believes they should be discriminated against. What she is pressing is the need for the GSUSA to address the concerns that girls and their families have with the issue and find a solution that best suits the needs of as many people as possible. For that, she deserves a great deal of credit, being that she had to have known when posting the video that she was going to get a harsh string of backlash since it is such a touchy subject, yet continued to pursue the goal she believes in. She makes points that vary in strength, but her overall argument was strong enough to envoke passion in many people and get her opinion heard, and for a teenage girl that’s enough in itself to be proud of.

Since when did they Girl Scouts have to notify any of the members of who has been inducted into the group. Yes its for girls, however, if the parent of the transgender child is okay with their child being comfortable in who they really are, why should the child be judged by the Girl Scout members? At the end of the day I don’t think safety would be a big issue but not letting kids be comfortable in who they are can be a bigger issue. Most teens commit suicide because they feel like their are not accepted in the world in today’s society. Instead of just causing a big issue about this and have everyone think differently about Girl Scouts, why not keep the positive reputation of the group itself and create a group for transgender boys?

I could see how some girls would view it as “invading privacy” but at the same time nobody is thinking about the feelings of these kids. Something has to be done to accommodate problems like the one the Girl Scouts are facing right now. I don’t think its right for the transgender boys to just be kicked to the side or treated as if they do not belong. Lets not be judgement, in my opinion that’s one of the main problem people face today. Nobody wants to be judged for who their really are but yet its still being done. Who will stand up and say “its okay to be YOU, you are still a human being”.

The Girl Scout states, “On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law”. Where is the “help” in this situation? The Law itself clearly says, “I will do my best to be honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do, and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout”. Are the “angry” Girl Scouts respecting others? Are they trying to make the world a better place but increasing the chances of low self esteem, judgement, and transgender kids being afraid to be who they really are?

To me the boycott don’t make sense because the Girl Scouts will still be making money. As she said “every $5 donation, is equivalent to selling 8 to 13 boxes of cookies”. Boycotting Girl Scout cookies is a way of “punishing” GSUSA, however, what would that solve? Should the members add to the problem or try to find a way to make things better? Dont get me wrong, she proves her points very well but my question remains the same.

There is nothing more refreshing than a child with such drive and passion choosing to take a stand for her beliefs; regardless of the topic, it is hard to not be proud of this Girl Scout.  Now, first and foremost, allow me to say that as a man who grew up with Cub and Boy Scouts, I agree with everything this girl has stated.  These views are absolutely going to creep in at times, but are in no way biasing the analysis.  Actually, in knowing that this was a 14-year old girl taking a “Youtube Stand” against an issue, the initial reaction was dreading a broken argument that would make the entire point and stand against this Fundraiser fall to pieces.  I am quite happy to say that already a bias has been proven wrong, as her arguments were pleasantly surprising.

As stated, young people taking a stand for their beliefs is something i enjoy (much more so when they are my own beliefs, of course), and professional, academic stands outside of a classroom are terribly hard to come by in modern society; “research” and “reporting” have become synonymous with schoolwork and essays, and thus absolutely no one wants to do any of it.  The fact that this young girl has, of her own free will, speaks a lot for her character.  Then she starts making her points, and it should be noted that it is much easier to read the transcript and remain objective rather than watching the video, and it all comes to fruition.  The Girl Scout’s work is impressive, for a 14-year old of course, and the first thing realized is just how much work she put into this endeavor.  She provides solid evidence and percentiles, accurately informally citing articles where need-be, and makes sure to let an appropriate amount of personal voice slip in without turning her entire goal into a rant.  Even her manner for how she presents her reasoning is impressive; whether intentional or not, she presents everything in a way that sounds academic, yet is none too flowery or arrogant, and can still be comprehended by everyone.  As she is a Girl Scout, this is key to her audience.  The big thing to take away from this, though, is her acknowledgement of the flawed system and she herself being the one to create this video and these points; she is showing audiences and cookie-purchasers what this situation looks like through the eyes of a child, which is always a persuasive tactic.

Of course, it is quite easy to see why this is so controversial.  But people do not seem to realize what they have done to help here, even if they dismiss this girl’s statements: everyone is taking her seriously.  Usually in situations such as these there are those who will hear everything she has said and not only dismiss, but openly mock them; the fact that everyone regardless of stance is actually hearing what she has to say proves how powerful this was alone.  Now, to be frank for a moment, unfortunately I will not stop “supporting” the Girl Scouts.  Will I silently hold a bit of anger that such a great organization is taking such a hypocritical stance allowing transgender children in?  Absolutely, but the cookies are just too delicious to stop buying.  Thankfully, the Girl Scout of the video possibly recognizes this herself, and in a final bit of impressive work she not only provides options for future alternative fundraisers, but first-hand sales data greater than that with the cookie Fundraiser.  Certainly, for all of these points and implications coming from a 14-year old girl, this is a splendid argument, and a hope for a bright future.

In a recent video posting that has sparked a wave of controversy, a California Girl Scout known as Taylor has asked that Girl Scout cookies be boycotted both by consumers and the girl scouts themselves. She believes that the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) is “not being honest with us girls, its troupes, its leaders, its parents, or the American public” in allowing transgender girls from kindergarten through to twelfth grade into the Girl Scouts.¹ In particular, the incident that prompted this video was a nine year old transgender girl being allowed into the Girl Scouts after initially being denied. Unfortunately, regardless of whether her a reader agrees with her beliefs, a variety of logical contradictions and some poorly chosen sources undermine her persuasiveness.

First is a very inconsistent approach to defining what exactly it means to be a girl. Taylor gives no definition herself, and the only statement resembling a qualification comes from the CO Girl Scouts VP for Communication Rachael Trujillo, reading “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, Taylor’s speech then constantly references how the Girl Scouts are betraying everyone’s trust by letting transgender girls in, and that they are breaking their own code to do so. And yet, using the only definition given in the speech, none of those things are true. The Girl Scout’s definition of girl includes transgender girls, so they are not breaking their code or betraying anyone’s trust. She attempts to support her arguments with the GSUSA funded study “10 Emerging Truths: New Directions for Girls 11-17,” but it is unclear what definition of girl this study is using, with the logical assumption being once again the definition given by Ms. Trujillo.² Thus, her quoting of the 4^th truth in that study fails to carry any weight. The safety regulations she claimed carried a contradiction until they were amended also do nothing of the sort under Ms. Trujillo’s definition of a girl.

Another major problem is the misuse and in many cases absence of support. Throughout the speech, she cites only the 10 Emerging Truths study, but only quotes one small part. She ignores the third truth entirely, which states that girls need a safe place, yet doesn’t say anything about gender being important to that safe place. She also neglects to mention the core 4 values that those surveyed in the 10 Emerging Truths study came up with: Become, Belong, Believe, and Build. The second of that list seems to directly contradict with her stance that transgender girls do not belong in Girl Scouts, and should at least have been addressed somehow. Further, she makes constant references that boys being a danger, but never specifies how.³ As this provides the cornerstone of her argument, the lack of any support is deeply felt — an average reader, especially one who didn’t already agree with her, might assume that the central reason for her position is an emotional response fueled by misinformation or bigotry. This belief isn’t exactly challenged by her last piece of support, the website HonestGirlScouts.com

While Taylor’s speech has its faults, they pale in comparison to those of her last source, HonestGirlScouts.com. If after Taylor’s speech an undecided listener followed her recommendation and visited the website, it is likely they would be immediately turned off by the extreme and hypocritical stances the site takes.  Boldly emblazoned with the quote “..to be Honest and Fair …and to be a sister to every Girl Scout,” the site then proceeds to directly contradict that quote in every article and link they have. They rage against the GSUSA for promoting a political agenda to impressionable girl scouts, all while promoting their own political agenda to the same impressionable girl scouts. They used the term “inclusion” as a negative, because the Girl Scouts include groups they don’t like, such as transgender girls. They absolutely refuse to make any compromises on giving out any sort of information regarding sexual education, which contradicts the 10 Emerging Truths study, which suggests that girls 11 to 17 want to be able to discuss such topics in their troupes. Most relevantly, they incorrectly define and trivialize the idea of being transgender, therefore casting suspicion that Taylor also views the issue in that light.

Finally, ignoring the actual content, the presentation of her points isn’t well worded or structured. Her speech is very stilted, and she displays little emotion throughout the video, which is especially damning due to her argument being based on an appeal to pathos. The transcript also reveals several very unwieldy sentences, such as the following: “So if a man is not allowed to share a tent with girls, what would you call a twelfth grade boy who turns eighteen years old?” The first clause of that sentence only tangentially relates to the second, and there are many more awkward phrases peppered throughout her speech. Individually, each of these points is minor at best, but combined they serve to greatly weaken her position.

In conclusion, Taylor’s rhetoric fails on several levels. She never conclusively defines what a girl is, and in fact provides evidence to a definition that is contrary to many of her points. She does not support her points very well in the speech, and the website she suggests to learn more will immediately turn off all but the most dedicated to her message – the kind of people she didn’t need to convince in the first place. Finally, the actual presentation of the speech is lacking, with many awkward sentences and pauses, and far too little emotion to make any emotional appeal possible.

Footnotes

1. From what I could ascertain, calling those who identify as female yet lack the normal sexual organs “transgender boys” is offensive. Thus, for the purposes of this article, the term “transgender girls” will be used instead.
2. 10 Emerging Truths is found here:  http://www.girlscouts.org/research/pdf/ten_truths.pdf
3. To avoid repletion, assume from this point on that every sentence with “boys” in it has an unspoken addendum that transgender girls do not identify as such.

A personal note: That paragraph on HonestGirlScouts.com was actually toned down several times. I tried to justify its inclusion the best I could, but the real reason was I couldn’t stand to not bring it up after reading through it.

This argument made by Taylor to enforce boycott on Girl Scout cookies due to the admission of a transgender boy into the organization had provide several point that target different groups of people.  She provided facts that there are cases which Girl Scout throughout America had already admitted transgender boy into the organization without letting everyone know.  She claims that the Girl Scout is not been honest and fair to their members, the leaders, parents, and the American public.  She was tough to connect and take action on what they want to change.  This action she takes to boycott Girl Scout cookies is using what they had been tough; therefore, they should not consider her action as something wrong.  Girl Scout is suppose to be an all-girls group in which girls can relate to others from their similar situations and experiences and talk about things with girls that are not talked in front of boys.  According to Taylor, family have great trust in this organization because of the situation is an all girls experience, and family believed this is a situation that is sensitive, helpful, and safe for girls to be in such environment.  This tries to targets people who are interesting in Girl Scout, because if they are not been honest to you as a member, what could be a reason to work or spend money for such an organization.

The other important point that Taylor had emphasis is regarding the safety for the girls.  The Girl Scout had required all leaders and volunteers to follow safety guidelines, especially for overnight safety.  She had question that since the rule had required adult male stuff to have separate sleeping and bathroom facilities, then where should a transgender boy that reach 18, which is consider an adult, use bathroom and sleeps at.  This is an essential point to impose parents to take action because the most important thing parents cared when child is not in sight is the child’s safety.  Therefore, such situation leave parent not willing to leave their child with possible danger, which according to Taylor, the danger she meant are the transgender boys.  Parent will be willing to participate in boycotting these cookies because if the group are no longer providing what they care for children, then why should they support the organization with money?

The girl had provided another point of which the organization does not care much about the members that are joining the Girl Scout.  They have rules that are not clearly stated the Girl Scout is for girl gender only, such as people can be admitted as long as they identifies self as girl and that the family presents them as a girl and not requiring any proof of gender.  Another example from the video is that anyone can join as long as they want, no matter what ethnicity, background, sexual orientation or gender.  In another word this had stated that boys can join the group if they wanted to.  This would take action on the members to go on boycott.  They would not have the feeling that their environment is related and comfortable enough to talk about anything. 

Her argument is strong and tries to target groups that will care about this problem she posted, but her argument could only effect on those who care about this issue.  From what she was saying she had assume that everyone agreed with her point that transgender boy is still boy.  Therefore she makes this big point on them being in Girls Scout is wrong.  On the other hand, there are a lot people who agree or had no offensive with the decision accepting transgender and would take action to support Girls Scout by buying cookies.  I believe that she would not be too successful on the movement to boycott Cookies because as some people, those who care about this issue, take action to boycott, there are so many others that will support Girl Scout.

Controversy has been surrounding a video posted by a 14 year old Girl Scout imploring people to boycott Girl Scout Cookies. Taylor’s pleas are connected to the Girl Scouts admitting they allow transgender boys into the organization.

Taylor says she has been taught by the Girl Scouts to take action when she sees the need for change. This is compelling because she’s using the Girl Scout’s objectives against them. She outlines the problem; the Girl Scouts admitting transgender boys. Taylor uses quotes from a representative of the Girl Scouts to prove they do let in transgender boys. She reiterates that this means they let in boys “solely based on their wishes and desires.”

She then brings up her main problem with this; the fact that the Girl Scout organization is letting in transgender boys without letting the girls or their families know. This is wrong, she says, because the Girl Scouts represent themselves as an all-girl organization because the experience enriches the girls. She then abruptly brings up safety before strengthening her point on the experience girls in all-girl groups get. She says in all-girl groups, girls can relate to each other, be themselves, dress how they want and talk about things they’re uncomfortable talking about in front of boys. She explains how this is deceptive of the organization and then goes back to her previous point of safety. Taylor points out that they transgender boys would have to use the same bathrooms and sleep in the same bedrooms as the girls. She also brings up the fact that the male chaperones must sleep in separate facilities. Since Girl Scouts maybe be up to age 18, transgender males are technically adult males. She reads us an excerpt of a publication that says the Girl Scouts do not discrimination for any reason including gender.

She then brings our attention to “the real question” which is why the Girl Scouts are accommodating transgender boys despite all this. Taylor’s argument loses some credibility here. She believes the Girl Scouts are accommodating these children because the organization cares more about that than the girls in it. This particular point is the only one that doesn’t really make too much sense, it’s difficult to see the connection shes trying to make here. It seems she’s being very naive in this and doesn’t have too much proof.

She finally explains alternatives to buying cookies; alternatives which would help the individual troops with out “giving GSUSA more pocket money.” Taylor’s argument is well thought-out; her arguments are very clear. Giving alternatives was a very smart decision. Though I don’t agree with her point of view, I must say her speech was mostly convincing. Her use of publicly available writings was very helpful to her point.