It has been consistently argued that gender differences exist in moral development, with boys displaying a greater grasp of complex rules, while girls reputedly live in simpler social worlds marked by harmony. Piaget's work on children's games posited a less developed legal sense in girls than in boys and continued with Gilligan's portrayal of females speaking in "a different voice." My presentation challenges the notion that girls have little concern with issues of justice by examining the embodied multi-modal forms of argumentation which occur in the midst of girls' games such as hop scotch, four square, and jump rope. Turn shape, intonation, body positioning and accounts are all critical to the construction of stance. Players can make use of heightened pitch, vowel lengthening, and raised volume to vocally highlight opposition in the preface of opposition turns. Girls evaluate the conduct of their fellow players and form judgments of their character based on the way they handle themselves in game disputes. A second part of the talk examines how girls practice forms of exclusion, constructing a "tagalong" girl as deviant, in the midst of activities such as games , ritual insult sequences, and telling stories. While traditional studies of morality have studied what people can propositionalize, I argue that by examining the practices that make up the life world of a particular group we can investigate how morality is lodged within the actions and stances that girls take up in interaction with their peers. This study is based on fieldwork conducted among a number of different groups of comparable ages, including a peer group of fifth grade working class second generation Spanish/English speakers and Asian-American girls in a downtown Los Angeles school, a clique of girls of diversity ethnicities and social classes in a middle class neighborhood of Los Angeles followed over three years (fourth to sixth grade), and Black working class fifth grade girls from Philadelphia and the rural South.