I'm sorry but I must be missing something.
This is what you're basing your claims about demonizing the word "boy" upon?
Most of the organizations on that list appear to accept all youth, regardless of gender, which isn't all that surprising to me. Some of them accept only boys but don't have the word "boy" in their title (e.g. The Challengers, The Ambassadors). When I was young I was in a girl's Christian youth group called Sparkies, with no mention of girls in the title whatsoever. So what? I guess I'm not seeing where the "battle of the sexes" or "battle of gender-specific terms" enters the picture.
I'm sorry then. I can't explain it any further.
If I were very rich, I would found an all-male youth organization in America called "Boys of the American Republic" and call its members officially "Republic Boys" and have an official magazine called the
Republic Boys. I would not call them "Republican Boys" as that might wrongfully imply affiliation with a political party. The organization would be scout-like and embrace respect for country, Constitution, good model citizenship, moral virtues and not lying and cheating, abstinence from smoking, alcohol and illegal drugs and for promoting national pride. It would also embrace 2nd A gun rights and responsible firearms ownership and use. There would be no homophobia in the organization and it would be open to all faiths. I would have to first consult with a lawyer knowledgeable of the Americans with Disabilities Act before implementing a policy for adult leaders based on mental health condition. As far as I am concern, a person sane enough to not have to be locked up is sane enough to lead and supervise minors. Registered sex offenders are an absolute no-no.
It's adult leaders, male, would be thoroughly screened for criminal record, mental health, drug abuse and history sexual misconduct. They would be required to be non-smoking. No convicted felons, registered sex offenders or those with ongoing mental issues would be permitted as adult staff members as a matter of my policy. Women would be allowed as volunteers to help with organization functions as meal preparation and interior decoration and perhaps also as "room mothers" providing adult guardianship and discipline for misbehavior.
I believe at one time during history, scout masters and den mothers of the various divisions of Boy Scouts could provide punishment as spankings for child misbehavior at organization meets and functions. As the Bible says, "spare the rod, spoil the child" which I do believe in.
But I can't dictate to private entities as to what to name their organizations, authors of intellectual materials as to what to publish or to commercial entities as to what to name their products. I can only boycott products and other things as I choose for whatever reasons I choose. I refuse to purchase Girl Scout cookies for more than one reason. One of them is that I am on a diet and abstain from sweets. Another is that the Boy Scouts never had a comparable commercial product to sell under their own name and I'm jealous as a male. Another, I object to the use of the term SCOUT in a female organization so I won't personally sponsor its cause. I don't think the term SCOUT sounds feminine. The British use "Girl GUIDES" and I find GUIDES more acceptable than SCOUT for the female sex. Girl Guides (or any female youth organization) should wear uniforms based upon pretty skirts, blouses and dresses (like the waitresses on the late-'70's TV program,
Alice) instead of paramilitary-looking uniforms. Camo, baseball hats, khaki shirts, khaki trousers, navy blue pants and shirts, bandanas, paramilitary-looking patches and combat boots are just not feminine.