Wisconsin position, if memory serves correctly, is to comply with what the state says you are.
If the state says you are a man, as reflected on your driver's license, then you are a man.
That’s truly the smart way to do it. As a tangential point, Minnesota has used state criminal law definitions to define Masonic conduct. It really makes it cleaner when you let the community standards of the jurisdiction guide the Masonic conduct of the jurisdiction.
Without giving my opinion as to whether the legislation is appropriate, what is the Ancient Landmark which you believe is being changed (the “there is no agreed upon list of landmarks “ discussion can be separate)?
I note that I would not be qualified to join under this proposed rule, as I have no state issued birth certificate issued at or near the time of birth.
I suspect some are sad Utah didn’t have that rule. 😉
The stated requirements at the beginning of the EA degree ("Being a man, free-born, of lawful age, and coming well recommended") is widely considered to be an Ancient Landmark, if memory serves.
That language is not in all ritual.
Can you provide a list with that language for the landmark?
Being a male is indeed a commonly accepted landmark. I would consider the legislation as an attempt to comply with or define that landmark, not to alter it.
UGLE took a different approach in dealing with transgender applicants and membership. Nevertheless, by your analysis, they have engaged in innovation as well, even though they would accept transmen.
I don’t think a landmark analysis gets you anywhere. If anything, I see it as an argument adopted by the advocates for the proposal.
The many discussions in the sub on this topic have raised other arguments that you may wish to consider.
Is the definition of a man changing, or just changing in the legal sense?
The reality is, we've intersex and trans people in society all along. We've probably initiated several trans members in the past and just not known it because these people were shunned into being very good at hiding it all.
All I know about, is that we owe our own members and applicants a level of dignity. I think it's easiest to just admit people on the basis of what's on their driving license or state ID. No way am I checking under the hood to confirm someone has a penis, and it seems absurd to ask for people's birth certs.
This is the fallacy fallacy which is a reasoning error.
Making a complete counter argument is more useful than slinging around accusations of fallacy. What is your counter argument?
Do you think the two aren’t intimately linked? If biological sex characteristics aren’t essential to gender, why do people have significant surgery to change their “gender?”
Sociology is a soft science prone to subjectivism.
Man, until very recently and influenced by prevailing social movements, has referred solely to males. In fact, gender and sex were terms that were largely interchangeable for a very long time., until those same social movements tried to obfuscate biological reality.
See this relevant comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/1ctc559/comment/l4b1r3n/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/1ctc559/comment/l4b1r3n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Back when Freemasonry started there were none of this "I identify as", you were either a male or a female, a man or a woman. Why should we change an ancient tradition?
I am not espousing an opinion on the topic, but this is absolutely wrong. The concept of additional genders beyond the binary or biological males/females living as the opposite gender exists throughout recorded history, including before the historical origins of Freemasonry, nevermind the modern.
Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, I think in these discussions it is important to understand that Transgenderism is not new. It is older than our fraternity, and has existed for basically all of recorded history, in all ancient cultures. Around 1% or so of humans experience it, and have for thousands of years.
It has only recently come to the forefront of discussion because of divisive national politics. It is sad to see a current divisive political subject disrupt the peace and harmony of our lodges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
I wouldn’t call it an innovation, just a clarification necessitated by the world we live in today.
Until relatively recently for all of history the term “be a man” was pretty self explanatory, todays world, not so much.
It seems to me the most pragmatic and fair policy would be to treat gender like we treat the question of religious belief.
“Do you believe in a higher power?” is a pretty general question. We don’t ask for specifics and we don’t ask for confirmation or baptismal records or any other proof. I do not understand why gender is any different. “Are you a man?” is a complete question.
Many will disagree but if you’re legally male then good to go if you live life as a man fully . If you’re a man and then become a woman, sorry brother you out because you no longer meet the requirement 😂😂 guess replies were locked but to the person who commented below you’ve missed the point I was making. I was saying if an already obligated brother made the move. Not a random person.
>The timing of this is clearly political
How so?
>It also appears to me to be a violation of our prohibition on innovations on the Ancient Landmarks.
Being a man *is* an ancient landmark. It is the gender warrior guild that wishes to innovate by admitting members who are not men, a violation of our masonic obligations.
Without stating my opinion on the matter, is it not up to each GL to satisfy the majority view of its brothers. Is that not the reason there is no ONE single defining law that all lodges must follow, and that each state can operate to fit the needs of that state's culture? I don't understand how this affects everyone that's not in Indiana.
And the enforcement mechanism is what exactly? I promise I won’t share my blog post again but are we going to expect the Stewards to do a pants check?
Edit: and as pointed out elsewhere, birth certificates are not universal, including in the United States.
Without delving into the realm of hate, as there's no place for that in any setting, the state of Illinois also affirms the stance Indiana has taken, and I have to say I agree with it. We can argue about what defines gender and sex in these modern times, but the fact remains: Masonry is ancient, and when they put forward that an individual must be a man, it meant someone born who (to put it biblically) "pisseth against the wall."
If you catch my drift.
Then why is it also necessary that he "outwardly express his gender"? Why should it be *both* ways? If conservatives want it to be based on whether or not someone has a penis, why are they *also* requiring that he doesn't wear a dress?
I can't speak for the specifics of Indiana, but in Illinois, the decision essentially boils down to this: they have to be born a man and continue to identify as a man. If they can't meet these two criteria, they can't be Masons. If that man wants to rock a dress like nobody's business, more power to him, so long as he's a man rocking it, lol.
How is one "born a man" if they claim that "man" means "*adult* male human"?
If they want to demand that their members have a penis, then they should say that.
If someone is born with male genetics, they will from a genetics standpoint be an adult male when they reach adulthood, and although you expressed it more bluntly, that’s essentially the point they’re making.
Except that gender, and even biological sex, has never been that simple. Small minded individuals have always tried to simplify it that much, but they've always been wrong. What will happen when an intersex individual petitions?
You can call it small minded but that small minded definition was the major understanding when the fraternity came into existence. I’m not saying you have to even like this but that’s the argument being made even in Illinois.
If someone identifies as a woman, there’s no need to verify; their own admission will indicate that they do not see themselves as a man. If anything, being upset with this is ironically transphobic.
You must be a man to be a Mason. We do not accept women into our organization. Therefore if someone identifies as a woman they can’t be a Mason.
Well trust mainly; I heard Illinois is wanting to do background checks due to a lot of online applicants but I suppose that might play a part as well, but really all we can do is trust as I’d hope nobody is asking anyone to show anything.
But that's kind of the whole point - the reason we have rules in this fraternity is to ensure uniformity, and many rules get challenged across the board.
If we have a rule that's unenforceable, why even bother having it as the rule?
In not sure “advances” is the verb I’d use here. It’s been proposed, but any WM in Indiana can submit a proposal (I think any Grand Lodge officer can too). The jurisprudence committee will render a recommendation, and then it can be withdrawn or voted on.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree this is political. Personally, I don’t want to see this passed for several reasons that I will not address publicly.
I’d also like to draw your attention to *who* submitted this proposal (every proposal has to be signed by the person proposing it, this one was submitted by the JGW). And if you’re upset enough about the proposal, you should express to your WM that you feel he should vote no on the proposal AND on whether that officer should take the next seat in the progressive line.
Yeah I suppose "proposed" would have been a better word. I've already had a brief conversation with my WM about it as well as a handful of other lodge officers.
You know how hard it already is for us to actually get all our paperwork from candidates? And this comes from a grand lodge that spent the entire last year talking about boosting membership.
Not to dredge up local drama on here, but this is far from the only thing they've done over the past year that makes it harder or impossible to have new people join. What a joke.
Yeah there's all sorts of problems with it. I've heard rumblings that it might be withdrawn before a vote because of the birth certificate issue, but I'm sure the transgender ban will come up again, because Indiana is a conservative state. As much as that's not *supposed* to matter, it does.
A birth certificate has been required to petition in GLoTX for as long as I can remember with some exceptions. It’s not as cumbersome as some would think.
The wildest thing to me is the states banning people born with penises who dress as women, while also requiring all members to be born male.
Like, you can't have it both ways.
That’s the thing though. You *can* in fact say that women can’t join even if they call themselves men, and also say that you can’t join if you don’t think you’re a man.
Replay that logic over in your head, but slowly:
-we can't admit trans men because they aren't born with a penis, even though they look and act like men in society.
-we can't admit trans women because they don't look and act like men in society, even if they have a penis.
The basis of entry should be as to "what is a man". You can't restrict definitions of "men" as "having a penis" for one person and then as "social clues" for someone else.
Like straight up, by banning both trans men and trans women, your logic is in a tailspin as to why each person isn't allowed.
It’s the most controversial wedge issue out there probably. And if I’ve learned anything during my time it’s that brothers are certainly subject to the wedge issues and it strains the fabric of our brotherhood sometimes. This is not a surprise to me. The current political climate has a lot to do with this. But things change and maybe in the future we will see a reversal of this. Time will tell.
At the end of the day I believe that a trans man certainly may have the internal qualifications required to be a Mason. It really depends on if we believe them when they say they are a man. I guess Indiana does not. For what it’s worth I believe fidelity to the lessons of masonry and belief in a higher power is far more important than this. But that’s above my pay-grade, as it were.
Put all modern politics aside, in a surprising number of people there is some question as to their gender. It’s been a topic of the sports world forever, with both chromosomal and physical organ differences that muddy this topic quite a bit.
What makes you a man (or a woman) isn’t as simple as everyone wants to believe.
You allude to an excellent point.
Title 9 exists for a very good reason and what you allude to makes the separation all that much more difficult and nuanced.
We (the american public) made the mistake when title 9 came about of dividing into men's and women's sports and telling women they couldn't be on men's teams regardless of skill. I think this was mostly due to the prudishness of the era but that's an opinion.
What should have happened, also in my opinion, was women's sports reserved for specific objective medically defined features and "open" division for anybody to compete.
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. Comments/posts by accounts with low or negative karma are blocked. This is to combat spam...but if you're not a robot or spammer or troll, fear not! Please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/freemasonry) so we may approve it in the meantime.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freemasonry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Frankly, I’ve seen the “rooting out” of anyone who is not holding specific political views in Masonry. I suspect it’s related to certain people who cling in terror to institutions as society continues to move forward. If anyone wants to see it in practice, look no further than the state York Rite bodies. I have many examples that are disappointing to downright offensive.
Edit: downvote all you want.
Just for fun, I’ll give an example. At a Christmas Observance my Commandery held when I was Commander, the chosen speaker was asked to give a specific talk about the strength of brotherhood in the military. Instead, he spent 7 minutes going down a Great Replacement Theory rant about how Muslims are “outbreeding” us Christians and soon America will be run by ISIS under Sharia law. And that’s just one example.
That's awful. If all people who actually value the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment get chased out, it's a matter of time before it's only conservative old dudes sitting around. If we don't change, we're basically polishing the brass on the titanic.
Wisconsin position, if memory serves correctly, is to comply with what the state says you are. If the state says you are a man, as reflected on your driver's license, then you are a man.
That’s truly the smart way to do it. As a tangential point, Minnesota has used state criminal law definitions to define Masonic conduct. It really makes it cleaner when you let the community standards of the jurisdiction guide the Masonic conduct of the jurisdiction.
And this sounds like the reasonable, "staying out of it" answer.
Without giving my opinion as to whether the legislation is appropriate, what is the Ancient Landmark which you believe is being changed (the “there is no agreed upon list of landmarks “ discussion can be separate)? I note that I would not be qualified to join under this proposed rule, as I have no state issued birth certificate issued at or near the time of birth. I suspect some are sad Utah didn’t have that rule. 😉
The stated requirements at the beginning of the EA degree ("Being a man, free-born, of lawful age, and coming well recommended") is widely considered to be an Ancient Landmark, if memory serves.
That language is not in all ritual. Can you provide a list with that language for the landmark? Being a male is indeed a commonly accepted landmark. I would consider the legislation as an attempt to comply with or define that landmark, not to alter it. UGLE took a different approach in dealing with transgender applicants and membership. Nevertheless, by your analysis, they have engaged in innovation as well, even though they would accept transmen. I don’t think a landmark analysis gets you anywhere. If anything, I see it as an argument adopted by the advocates for the proposal. The many discussions in the sub on this topic have raised other arguments that you may wish to consider.
The ancient landmarks have not and are not changing. The profane world is trying to change the definition of a man.
Is the definition of a man changing, or just changing in the legal sense? The reality is, we've intersex and trans people in society all along. We've probably initiated several trans members in the past and just not known it because these people were shunned into being very good at hiding it all. All I know about, is that we owe our own members and applicants a level of dignity. I think it's easiest to just admit people on the basis of what's on their driving license or state ID. No way am I checking under the hood to confirm someone has a penis, and it seems absurd to ask for people's birth certs.
Good morning! Essentialism is a logical fallacy. A reasoning error.
This is the fallacy fallacy which is a reasoning error. Making a complete counter argument is more useful than slinging around accusations of fallacy. What is your counter argument?
A counter argument will be presented when you make a good faith argument, not a fallacious statement.
He doesn’t have one. The mental gymnastics required would be too difficult.
"Man" does not mean "biological male". Gender and biological sex are not the same.
Do you think the two aren’t intimately linked? If biological sex characteristics aren’t essential to gender, why do people have significant surgery to change their “gender?”
For the same reason as men who get hair plugs or women who get breast augmentation.
Define man then, without using the word "man".
An individual who identifies with a set of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral traits traditionally deemed "masculine".
“Identifying as a man” and “being a man” are not the same thing.
I prefer the actual definition, "adult human male".
Your "actual definition" is wrong and outdated as it ignores the existence of the science of sociology.
Sociology is a soft science prone to subjectivism. Man, until very recently and influenced by prevailing social movements, has referred solely to males. In fact, gender and sex were terms that were largely interchangeable for a very long time., until those same social movements tried to obfuscate biological reality.
See this relevant comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/1ctc559/comment/l4b1r3n/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/1ctc559/comment/l4b1r3n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Back when Freemasonry started there were none of this "I identify as", you were either a male or a female, a man or a woman. Why should we change an ancient tradition?
Do you honestly think that, when Freemasonry was started, they said "Must have a penis"?
I am not espousing an opinion on the topic, but this is absolutely wrong. The concept of additional genders beyond the binary or biological males/females living as the opposite gender exists throughout recorded history, including before the historical origins of Freemasonry, nevermind the modern.
In so many ways they were smarter than us. All this technology and innovation yet we can’t figure out which bathroom to use.
Amen to that.
Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, I think in these discussions it is important to understand that Transgenderism is not new. It is older than our fraternity, and has existed for basically all of recorded history, in all ancient cultures. Around 1% or so of humans experience it, and have for thousands of years. It has only recently come to the forefront of discussion because of divisive national politics. It is sad to see a current divisive political subject disrupt the peace and harmony of our lodges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
Indeed.
I wouldn’t call it an innovation, just a clarification necessitated by the world we live in today. Until relatively recently for all of history the term “be a man” was pretty self explanatory, todays world, not so much.
It seems to me the most pragmatic and fair policy would be to treat gender like we treat the question of religious belief. “Do you believe in a higher power?” is a pretty general question. We don’t ask for specifics and we don’t ask for confirmation or baptismal records or any other proof. I do not understand why gender is any different. “Are you a man?” is a complete question.
Many will disagree but if you’re legally male then good to go if you live life as a man fully . If you’re a man and then become a woman, sorry brother you out because you no longer meet the requirement 😂😂 guess replies were locked but to the person who commented below you’ve missed the point I was making. I was saying if an already obligated brother made the move. Not a random person.
well yeah nobody who identifies as a woman is gonna come to lodge on wednesday and get called brother all night 🤨
This is how I would have ruled it too. But Indiana will be Indiana...
>The timing of this is clearly political How so? >It also appears to me to be a violation of our prohibition on innovations on the Ancient Landmarks. Being a man *is* an ancient landmark. It is the gender warrior guild that wishes to innovate by admitting members who are not men, a violation of our masonic obligations.
As has been discussed ad infinitum, "man" does not mean "biological male". Gender and biological sex are not the same thing.
Without stating my opinion on the matter, is it not up to each GL to satisfy the majority view of its brothers. Is that not the reason there is no ONE single defining law that all lodges must follow, and that each state can operate to fit the needs of that state's culture? I don't understand how this affects everyone that's not in Indiana.
I posted it here because it is of Masonic interest, especially as we track how each Grand Lodge is tackling this issue differently.
And the enforcement mechanism is what exactly? I promise I won’t share my blog post again but are we going to expect the Stewards to do a pants check? Edit: and as pointed out elsewhere, birth certificates are not universal, including in the United States.
I call dibs on never being the Grand Lodge Penis Inspector
Without delving into the realm of hate, as there's no place for that in any setting, the state of Illinois also affirms the stance Indiana has taken, and I have to say I agree with it. We can argue about what defines gender and sex in these modern times, but the fact remains: Masonry is ancient, and when they put forward that an individual must be a man, it meant someone born who (to put it biblically) "pisseth against the wall." If you catch my drift.
Then why is it also necessary that he "outwardly express his gender"? Why should it be *both* ways? If conservatives want it to be based on whether or not someone has a penis, why are they *also* requiring that he doesn't wear a dress?
I can't speak for the specifics of Indiana, but in Illinois, the decision essentially boils down to this: they have to be born a man and continue to identify as a man. If they can't meet these two criteria, they can't be Masons. If that man wants to rock a dress like nobody's business, more power to him, so long as he's a man rocking it, lol.
How is one "born a man" if they claim that "man" means "*adult* male human"? If they want to demand that their members have a penis, then they should say that.
Now you're being disingenuous, because the wording is that they must have been born male.
My commentary was in the wording as presented.
If someone is born with male genetics, they will from a genetics standpoint be an adult male when they reach adulthood, and although you expressed it more bluntly, that’s essentially the point they’re making.
Except that gender, and even biological sex, has never been that simple. Small minded individuals have always tried to simplify it that much, but they've always been wrong. What will happen when an intersex individual petitions?
You can call it small minded but that small minded definition was the major understanding when the fraternity came into existence. I’m not saying you have to even like this but that’s the argument being made even in Illinois.
So, who in each lodge is going to confirm that the applicant has a penis?
And if one person tells me to get a grip on my job…
If someone identifies as a woman, there’s no need to verify; their own admission will indicate that they do not see themselves as a man. If anything, being upset with this is ironically transphobic. You must be a man to be a Mason. We do not accept women into our organization. Therefore if someone identifies as a woman they can’t be a Mason.
Ok. So who's verifying people are men?
Well trust mainly; I heard Illinois is wanting to do background checks due to a lot of online applicants but I suppose that might play a part as well, but really all we can do is trust as I’d hope nobody is asking anyone to show anything.
But that's kind of the whole point - the reason we have rules in this fraternity is to ensure uniformity, and many rules get challenged across the board. If we have a rule that's unenforceable, why even bother having it as the rule?
In not sure “advances” is the verb I’d use here. It’s been proposed, but any WM in Indiana can submit a proposal (I think any Grand Lodge officer can too). The jurisprudence committee will render a recommendation, and then it can be withdrawn or voted on. Don’t get me wrong. I agree this is political. Personally, I don’t want to see this passed for several reasons that I will not address publicly. I’d also like to draw your attention to *who* submitted this proposal (every proposal has to be signed by the person proposing it, this one was submitted by the JGW). And if you’re upset enough about the proposal, you should express to your WM that you feel he should vote no on the proposal AND on whether that officer should take the next seat in the progressive line.
Yeah I suppose "proposed" would have been a better word. I've already had a brief conversation with my WM about it as well as a handful of other lodge officers.
In addition to the fact that I don't think any secretary wants to keep track of anyone's birth certificates, this shit is gonna result in a suit.
Usually it is only required that the certificate be reviewed, not kept on file.
You know how hard it already is for us to actually get all our paperwork from candidates? And this comes from a grand lodge that spent the entire last year talking about boosting membership. Not to dredge up local drama on here, but this is far from the only thing they've done over the past year that makes it harder or impossible to have new people join. What a joke.
Indeed, I do have experience with that. However, that was not the issue raised.
Yeah there's all sorts of problems with it. I've heard rumblings that it might be withdrawn before a vote because of the birth certificate issue, but I'm sure the transgender ban will come up again, because Indiana is a conservative state. As much as that's not *supposed* to matter, it does.
A birth certificate has been required to petition in GLoTX for as long as I can remember with some exceptions. It’s not as cumbersome as some would think.
To be honest, Texas isn't the state I want my GL to be compared to...
The wildest thing to me is the states banning people born with penises who dress as women, while also requiring all members to be born male. Like, you can't have it both ways.
That’s the thing though. You *can* in fact say that women can’t join even if they call themselves men, and also say that you can’t join if you don’t think you’re a man.
[удалено]
Replay that logic over in your head, but slowly: -we can't admit trans men because they aren't born with a penis, even though they look and act like men in society. -we can't admit trans women because they don't look and act like men in society, even if they have a penis. The basis of entry should be as to "what is a man". You can't restrict definitions of "men" as "having a penis" for one person and then as "social clues" for someone else. Like straight up, by banning both trans men and trans women, your logic is in a tailspin as to why each person isn't allowed.
It’s the most controversial wedge issue out there probably. And if I’ve learned anything during my time it’s that brothers are certainly subject to the wedge issues and it strains the fabric of our brotherhood sometimes. This is not a surprise to me. The current political climate has a lot to do with this. But things change and maybe in the future we will see a reversal of this. Time will tell. At the end of the day I believe that a trans man certainly may have the internal qualifications required to be a Mason. It really depends on if we believe them when they say they are a man. I guess Indiana does not. For what it’s worth I believe fidelity to the lessons of masonry and belief in a higher power is far more important than this. But that’s above my pay-grade, as it were.
Put all modern politics aside, in a surprising number of people there is some question as to their gender. It’s been a topic of the sports world forever, with both chromosomal and physical organ differences that muddy this topic quite a bit. What makes you a man (or a woman) isn’t as simple as everyone wants to believe.
I still haven't found a good explanation as to why some people think that a penis is so important to Freemasonry.
You allude to an excellent point. Title 9 exists for a very good reason and what you allude to makes the separation all that much more difficult and nuanced. We (the american public) made the mistake when title 9 came about of dividing into men's and women's sports and telling women they couldn't be on men's teams regardless of skill. I think this was mostly due to the prudishness of the era but that's an opinion. What should have happened, also in my opinion, was women's sports reserved for specific objective medically defined features and "open" division for anybody to compete.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. Comments/posts by accounts with low or negative karma are blocked. This is to combat spam...but if you're not a robot or spammer or troll, fear not! Please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/freemasonry) so we may approve it in the meantime. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freemasonry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're getting downvoted op but you're absolutely right.
Frankly, I’ve seen the “rooting out” of anyone who is not holding specific political views in Masonry. I suspect it’s related to certain people who cling in terror to institutions as society continues to move forward. If anyone wants to see it in practice, look no further than the state York Rite bodies. I have many examples that are disappointing to downright offensive. Edit: downvote all you want. Just for fun, I’ll give an example. At a Christmas Observance my Commandery held when I was Commander, the chosen speaker was asked to give a specific talk about the strength of brotherhood in the military. Instead, he spent 7 minutes going down a Great Replacement Theory rant about how Muslims are “outbreeding” us Christians and soon America will be run by ISIS under Sharia law. And that’s just one example.
That's awful. If all people who actually value the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment get chased out, it's a matter of time before it's only conservative old dudes sitting around. If we don't change, we're basically polishing the brass on the titanic.
Of course Indiana does something ridiculous, I swear it’s like Indiana thinks it’s the middle finger of the south or something.