Let’s revisit the rebrand, the reaffirmation, and the fallout to see what really changed—and what didn’t
Contributor Decker McCullough 9/16/25 3PM MST
Scouting America Rebrands. Girl Scouts Reaffirm. Identity Playground or Institutional Collapse? Decker McCullough Takes a Deep Dive.
From the Boy Scouts’ shift to gender-inclusive branding to the Girl Scouts’ quiet policy of accepting trans-identifying boys, Decker unpacks the fallout, the fury, and the cultural reckoning behind America’s youth institutions.
I’d Like to Take This Opportunity to Say Something Alarming
America can’t even reach consensus on aggravated murder anymore. From Charlie Kirk to Iryna Zaritska, the public response to political killings fractures along tribal lines—mockery, memes, and moral shrugs replacing outrage. But the sickness runs deeper. It’s not just about death. It’s about identity. It’s about institutions. And it’s about the slow-motion collapse of the spaces we once trusted to shape our youth.
This editorial isn’t just about the Boy Scouts’ name change or the Girl Scouts’ quiet policy shifts. It’s about what happens when foundational organizations become battlegrounds for cultural war. When tradition is rewritten, not thoughtfully—but reactively. When clarity is sacrificed for inclusivity, and when the very idea of childhood becomes politicized.
The Rebrand Heard Round the Campfire
On February 8, 2025—its 115th anniversary—the Boy Scouts of America officially became Scouting America. The timing was symbolic. The message was clear: the organization was no longer just for boys. It was for everyone.
The rebrand followed years of incremental change. Girls were first allowed into Cub Scouts in 2017, and into Scouts BSA in 2019. By 2024, over 176,000 girls and young women had joined the program. The name “Boy Scouts” no longer fit. So it was retired.
Scouting America’s leadership framed the change as a bold step toward unity. “We are committed to teaching young people to be Prepared. For Life,” said CEO Roger Krone. The new name was meant to reflect a modern, inclusive movement—one that welcomed all youth, regardless of gender, orientation, or background.
But not everyone was convinced.
The Backlash: Heritage vs. Inclusivity
The rebrand sparked fierce backlash. Conservative commentators accused the organization of caving to “woke gender ideology.” Online petitions demanded a return to tradition. “The Left has now taken ‘Boy’ out of ‘Boy Scouts.’ Wokeness destroys everything it touches,” wrote Rep. Andrew Clyde.
Even LGBTQ+ advocacy groups voiced concern. Gays Against Groomers, a nonprofit of gay and lesbian individuals opposed to the sexualization of children, criticized the rebrand as “the destabilization of children’s identities.” Their statement was blunt: “Boys deserve their own spaces just as much as girls do, not blurred lines.”
This wasn’t just a branding debate. It was a cultural reckoning. And it exposed a deeper tension: can institutions evolve without erasing their core?
The Girl Scouts’ Quiet Shift
While the Boy Scouts rebranded loudly, the Girl Scouts reaffirmed their identity—quietly, but significantly. They didn’t change their name. They didn’t overhaul their mission. But they did update their policies.
Today, the Girl Scouts welcome transgender girls, nonbinary youth, and gender-expansive members. A boy who identifies as a girl can join. A child questioning their gender can find support. The organization offers training, resources, and inclusive language guides for troop leaders.
But here’s the catch: cisgender boys—those assigned male at birth and identifying as male—are still excluded. The Girl Scouts draw a line. Their mission is to serve girls and those who identify as girls. Not boys. Not everyone.
It’s a nuanced stance. But it raises questions. If identity is fluid, who decides who belongs? And what happens when that decision is challenged?
The Problem with Boys in the Girl Scouts
Let’s be blunt. The inclusion of transgender girls in the Girl Scouts is a lightning rod. Supporters call it affirming. Critics call it confusing. And parents—many of them—are caught in the middle.
The issue isn’t just ideological. It’s logistical. Overnight trips. Shared cabins. Changing rooms. Bathrooms. Troop leaders are now tasked with navigating privacy, safety, and inclusion—all at once.
Girl Scouts of Western Washington offer guidance: treat all campers equally, respect pronouns, and provide private changing spaces. But the reality is messier. What happens when a cisgender girl feels uncomfortable? When a parent objects? When a troop fractures?
These aren’t hypothetical scenarios. They’re happening. And they’re forcing institutions to choose between clarity and compassion.
Gay Individuals in Scouting: A Long Road to Inclusion
The Boy Scouts’ journey with LGBTQ+ inclusion has been long—and painful. For decades, the organization banned gay youth and adult leaders. The policy was rooted in vague references to being “morally straight” and “clean in thought.” But it was enforced with brutal clarity.
James Dale, an Eagle Scout, was expelled in 1990 after coming out as gay. His case went to the Supreme Court. He lost. The message was clear: being gay disqualified you from leadership.
That changed in 2013, when the Boy Scouts lifted the ban on gay youth. In 2015, they removed the ban on gay adult leaders. Today, Scouting America welcomes LGBTQ+ members and volunteers. The policy shift was monumental. But the scars remain.
Many gay Scouts recall being excluded, shamed, or forced to hide their identity. The organization’s past still haunts its present. And while the new policies are inclusive, they’re not universally accepted.
Historical Roots: What Were These Institutions Built For?
The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910, inspired by the British scouting movement created by Sir Robert Baden-Powell. Its original mission? To mold boys into responsible citizens, leaders, and protectors of the nation. It was a reaction to fears of emasculation in the Progressive Era—a way to restore rugged masculinity through outdoor adventure and civic duty.
The Girl Scouts, founded in 1912 by Juliette Gordon Low, had a different mission: to empower girls in a society that limited their roles. At a time when women couldn’t vote, Girl Scouts taught girls to hike, camp, and lead. It was revolutionary. It was feminist. And it was unapologetically for girls.
These institutions weren’t just clubs. They were cultural statements. They reflected—and shaped—American values. And now, they’re being rewritten.
Identity Politics and the Collapse of Trust
Today’s youth are growing up in a world where identity is fluid, politics are tribal, and institutions are distrusted. According to Tufts University’s CIRCLE report, only 16% of young people believe democracy is working well for them. Nearly 1 in 10 trust no institutions at all.
Social media companies, Congress, and major political parties rank among the least trusted. Peers and nonprofits rank highest. Why? Because young people trust what they can see, feel, and influence. Institutions that feel distant—or ideological—lose credibility.
Scouting America and the Girl Scouts are caught in this storm. Their attempts to evolve are seen by some as progress, by others as betrayal. And the result is confusion, division, and declining membership.
Real-World Fallout: Lawsuits, Bankruptcy, and Brand Wars
The Girl Scouts sued the Boy Scouts in 2018, accusing them of trademark infringement and marketplace confusion after the Boy Scouts opened their programs to girls. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2022. The judge ruled that “Scout” is a descriptive term, and that the Boy Scouts acted in good faith.
Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts—now Scouting America—have been embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings since 2020, facing over 84,000 sexual abuse claims. They reached an $850 million settlement, mortgaged properties, and restructured operations.
These aren’t just legal battles. They’re existential crises. And they reflect a broader collapse of trust in institutions once seen as pillars of American life.
Identity Playgrounds or Institutional Collapse?
So where does that leave us?
Scouting America is now gender-inclusive. Girl Scouts are affirming transgender youth. LGBTQ+ individuals can lead troops. On paper, it’s progress.
But in practice, it’s chaos.
Membership is down. Trust is fractured. Parents are confused. And the institutions that once shaped character are now battlegrounds for identity politics.
This isn’t just about Scouts. It’s about schools, sports, churches, and camps. It’s about the erosion of shared norms. The collapse of consensus. The idea that we no longer agree on what childhood even means.
Are these institutions evolving—or imploding?
Decker’s Take: The Collapse Is Cultural
Let’s cut through the noise.
This isn’t about inclusion vs. exclusion. It’s about clarity vs. confusion. Institutions like the Scouts were built on structure, tradition, and purpose. They taught kids how to lead, how to serve, how to grow.
Today, they’re teaching kids how to navigate pronouns, identity politics, and cultural minefields. That’s not inherently bad. But it’s not what they were built for.
The rebrand to Scouting America may be well-intentioned. But it’s also a symptom. A symptom of a country that can’t agree on murder, let alone membership. A country where institutions bend. We want to hear from YOU !
