Military moves closer to lifting transgender ban.
July 13, 2015 4:56 PM Subscribe
The Pentagon took a significant step Monday toward lifting its ban on allowing transgender men and women to serve in the military, announcing a six-month study designed to clear the way. The study will "start with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments are identified," Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said in a statement announcing the move.
Or Obama could just issue an order and end it tomorrow morning. That's the point of civilian oversight, they can simply be ordered to integrate and they will comply (eventually; there would probably be some/much intransigence to begin with). Unless trans voices are arguing against that way through this issue, seems to me like the best, fastest option.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:38 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:38 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Ashton Carter" is such a Tiger Beat boy band name that I always think it's an Onion article when I see him talking about the armed forces.
That is all. Return to your serious-people discussions.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:41 PM on July 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
That is all. Return to your serious-people discussions.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:41 PM on July 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
I was surprised, although I probably shouldn't have been, to read that it's estimated there are already about 15,000 trans people serving in the military. How do you get through boot camp if you're keeping that a secret? Must be a lot of folks looking the other way. Sounds like allowing trans people to serve openly might not be as big a deal as some people would think.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:29 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:29 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am curious what impact this will have on Selective Service registration policies.
posted by jaksemas at 6:38 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jaksemas at 6:38 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess I get to play the "ungrateful" queer, but this isn't all that great for trans folks who aren't already in the military (and, yes, I know some). It's nice and all when the government decide you're not defective or whatever, at least when it comes to killing people, but access to competent medical care, housing, employment and so on would do people a lot more good.
posted by hoyland at 6:49 PM on July 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 6:49 PM on July 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. I'd like to just rewind a potentially hurtful derail here, b33j please check your MefiMail.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:57 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:57 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
it's estimated there are already about 15,000 trans people serving in the military. How do you get through boot camp if you're keeping that a secret?
Being trans isn't all about genitals and secondary sex characteristics. If you keep your mouth shut and don't transition, the military doesn't care if you're trans because they don't know. And then there are people whose commanding officers know but choose not to care.
posted by hoyland at 7:06 PM on July 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
Being trans isn't all about genitals and secondary sex characteristics. If you keep your mouth shut and don't transition, the military doesn't care if you're trans because they don't know. And then there are people whose commanding officers know but choose not to care.
posted by hoyland at 7:06 PM on July 13, 2015 [8 favorites]
What hoyland said, but also, a lot of those 15,000 are actively trying not to be trans -- SEAL Senior Chief Petty Officer Kristin Beck has said that she joined the military specifically to deal with her gender identity:
posted by Etrigan at 7:09 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
In the book, Speckhard notes that Beck had a desire to die honorably "so that [she] wouldn't have to wrestle anymore with the emotional pain that stemmed from the lack of congruency between [her] gender identity and body."It was the same way for a lot of LGB servicemembers in the DADT and pre-DADT days. When you grow up trans or gay in a culture that doesn't accept that, you can see the military as a way to "make a real man out of you."
posted by Etrigan at 7:09 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
Thank you, LobsterMitten. I most assuredly did not mean that trans folk are risky people. Not at all. No. I am aware that they are discriminated against in their use of facilities like bathrooms. I think I read here about a little trans kiddy at preschool or school who was isolated and excluded, and that got me to thinking that the whole bathroom gendered thing is a crock of crap (so to speak) designed ostensibly to "prevent rape". I am truly sorry if my stupid post hurt anyone. I am ignorant of a lot of issues that trans people face, but I'm trying to learn, and I appreciate being called out for being insensitive in my wording.
So, what I was saying was that some people in the military might have issues with trans people using gendered toilet and bathroom facilities because some people already do have issues with that. I don't think that's reasonable.
I was trying to work out why we even have gendered bathrooms, and I thought perhaps the original idea was to prevent rape (not by trans folk, and unfortunately, also not of trans folk) of women, generally. But this is a guess.
I'm really sorry that I accidentally implied that trans folk are rapists. It was the opposite of what I was thinking.
posted by b33j at 7:20 PM on July 13, 2015
So, what I was saying was that some people in the military might have issues with trans people using gendered toilet and bathroom facilities because some people already do have issues with that. I don't think that's reasonable.
I was trying to work out why we even have gendered bathrooms, and I thought perhaps the original idea was to prevent rape (not by trans folk, and unfortunately, also not of trans folk) of women, generally. But this is a guess.
I'm really sorry that I accidentally implied that trans folk are rapists. It was the opposite of what I was thinking.
posted by b33j at 7:20 PM on July 13, 2015
I wonder if for trans men and trans women alike it's a chance "to man up". For the former its a chance to "be the real you" and in the latter it's internalized transmisogyny leading a person to try to "man up" in attempt to get rid of those trans feelings.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:33 PM on July 13, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:33 PM on July 13, 2015
I was surprised, although I probably shouldn't have been, to read that it's estimated there are already about 15,000 trans people serving in the military. How do you get through boot camp if you're keeping that a secret?
Chelsea Manning has spoken a bit about her experiences, if you're interested in direct perspective on what hoyland is talking about.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:36 PM on July 13, 2015
Chelsea Manning has spoken a bit about her experiences, if you're interested in direct perspective on what hoyland is talking about.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:36 PM on July 13, 2015
I put some phrases in quotes in my last comment because in my opinion those actions would be coping mechanisms where the optimal action is to be able to come out and "hey I'm trans." without fear of terrible outcomes, and upon re-reading i fear thoe added quotes makes my comment look a bit mean-spirited.
Commenting good is hard. Sigh.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:41 PM on July 13, 2015
Commenting good is hard. Sigh.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:41 PM on July 13, 2015
b33j: "I was trying to work out why we even have gendered bathrooms, and I thought perhaps the original idea was to prevent rape "
Modern public bathrooms come largely out of three Victorian trends -- the newish expectation of privacy (the wealthy might not always have servants in the room, and the new middle class could afford private space and multiple rooms) leading people to expect to pee in privacy for one of the first times in history; women going to work in factories; and trains. Factories providing toilet facilities for their new female workforce often wanted those women separated from the men while exposing their genitalia -- for safety, yes, and for prudery and paternalism definitely, and to be able to convince more women to work there and parents to let their daughters work there, and to convince investors to invest there, and to prevent consensual bathroom hanky-panky from slowing down the factory's production, and because controlling the sex lives of your employees is one of the longest-standing traditions in human history ...
Long-distance trains, and the associated restaurants and hotels, quite typically had men's and ladies' "waiting rooms," which eventually acquired attached toilet facilities and indoor plumbing. Long train journeys could take several days. Women traveling could be extremely vulnerable; "nice" women often did not want to share public facilities with strange men; people often did wash up as best they could in train waiting rooms; etc. There were even sex-segregated train cars. "Plumbing laws" in the US mandating separate bathrooms start coming in in the 1880s. The transcontinental railroad was completed in (*quick google*) 1869.
(Also the Victorians' response to an awful lot of social trends was, "Quick, segregate it by sex! That will solve/slow down/fix/speed up/reverse/upend/improve this thing that is happening!" The real answer might just be "Victorians gonna Victorian, and now we've got all this entrenched infrastructure.")
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:02 PM on July 13, 2015 [28 favorites]
Modern public bathrooms come largely out of three Victorian trends -- the newish expectation of privacy (the wealthy might not always have servants in the room, and the new middle class could afford private space and multiple rooms) leading people to expect to pee in privacy for one of the first times in history; women going to work in factories; and trains. Factories providing toilet facilities for their new female workforce often wanted those women separated from the men while exposing their genitalia -- for safety, yes, and for prudery and paternalism definitely, and to be able to convince more women to work there and parents to let their daughters work there, and to convince investors to invest there, and to prevent consensual bathroom hanky-panky from slowing down the factory's production, and because controlling the sex lives of your employees is one of the longest-standing traditions in human history ...
Long-distance trains, and the associated restaurants and hotels, quite typically had men's and ladies' "waiting rooms," which eventually acquired attached toilet facilities and indoor plumbing. Long train journeys could take several days. Women traveling could be extremely vulnerable; "nice" women often did not want to share public facilities with strange men; people often did wash up as best they could in train waiting rooms; etc. There were even sex-segregated train cars. "Plumbing laws" in the US mandating separate bathrooms start coming in in the 1880s. The transcontinental railroad was completed in (*quick google*) 1869.
(Also the Victorians' response to an awful lot of social trends was, "Quick, segregate it by sex! That will solve/slow down/fix/speed up/reverse/upend/improve this thing that is happening!" The real answer might just be "Victorians gonna Victorian, and now we've got all this entrenched infrastructure.")
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:02 PM on July 13, 2015 [28 favorites]
REGISTER: It’s What a Man’s Got to Do. It’s quick, it’s easy, it’s the Law.
I don't think I've ever looked at the Selective Service website before. That is one horrible tag line that I hope this review puts a quash on as quickly as possible.
I grew up in Texas in the 1960s and '70s in a very conservative town to very liberal parents. I'm pretty sure they would have actively discouraged myself and my brothers from registering with the SSS. I know they'd promised to get us to Canada if the draft ever returned. So, I probably never actively registered (although I vaguely remember something about automatic registration associated with getting an SSN during that period).
Later on in life, but still in my 20's I was working as an IT consultant to the aerospace and defense industry. I made it far enough through screening to get a provisional clearance and was already supporting several contractor facilities across north Texas. The gender stuff was actively boiling under the surface but I hadn't taken any overt or concrete actions then. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the full clearance was knocked back due to some fairly easy to identify transgressions (hah!) at the time that I hadn't disclosed during the interviews. It would have probably been knocked back if I'd disclosed them in any case. No matter, I guess.
Probably needless to say, but this seems to me to be a good thing and would align US military forces with several of it's major alliances. The UK and AU springing to mind immediately. That it would take 6 months to complete "the study" seems a reasonably timeframe to dig through what will probably be a mountain of existing policies, guidelines and procedures that will need to be rethought, reframed and rewritten. Especially as they are also intentionally slowing / hampering any inflight involuntary discharges with the apparent intent of keeping existing trans folks who want to remain in active service.
posted by michswiss at 8:09 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think I've ever looked at the Selective Service website before. That is one horrible tag line that I hope this review puts a quash on as quickly as possible.
I grew up in Texas in the 1960s and '70s in a very conservative town to very liberal parents. I'm pretty sure they would have actively discouraged myself and my brothers from registering with the SSS. I know they'd promised to get us to Canada if the draft ever returned. So, I probably never actively registered (although I vaguely remember something about automatic registration associated with getting an SSN during that period).
Later on in life, but still in my 20's I was working as an IT consultant to the aerospace and defense industry. I made it far enough through screening to get a provisional clearance and was already supporting several contractor facilities across north Texas. The gender stuff was actively boiling under the surface but I hadn't taken any overt or concrete actions then. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the full clearance was knocked back due to some fairly easy to identify transgressions (hah!) at the time that I hadn't disclosed during the interviews. It would have probably been knocked back if I'd disclosed them in any case. No matter, I guess.
Probably needless to say, but this seems to me to be a good thing and would align US military forces with several of it's major alliances. The UK and AU springing to mind immediately. That it would take 6 months to complete "the study" seems a reasonably timeframe to dig through what will probably be a mountain of existing policies, guidelines and procedures that will need to be rethought, reframed and rewritten. Especially as they are also intentionally slowing / hampering any inflight involuntary discharges with the apparent intent of keeping existing trans folks who want to remain in active service.
posted by michswiss at 8:09 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not bathrooms as much as it's bunks. From open-bay barracks at Basic Training to Navy ships to Forward Operating Bases in Middleofnowherestan, the military has a lot of places where people sleep in close quarters. Given the known issues with sexual assault in the ranks, no one wants to jump too quickly on something that they perceive as potentially adding to the problem.
Of course, it won't, because no one will actually claim to be trans just so they can sleep in the woman's CHUs, but we'll have to re-convince the concern trolls who were "worrying" about the same thing before DADT was repealed.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Of course, it won't, because no one will actually claim to be trans just so they can sleep in the woman's CHUs, but we'll have to re-convince the concern trolls who were "worrying" about the same thing before DADT was repealed.
posted by Etrigan at 8:16 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
I suspect the actual sexual-assault problem would be trans service members being at risk of assault by cis service members.
posted by jaguar at 8:46 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 8:46 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
Finally transfolk can help us win at the absurd battle chess that is the US military's various war efforts. To help slay the Balrog that for some reason menaces the US.
We've got some special effects left over from Willow, you can help us battle that too, for some reason.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 8:53 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
We've got some special effects left over from Willow, you can help us battle that too, for some reason.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 8:53 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or Obama could just issue an order and end it tomorrow morning. That's the point of civilian oversight, they can simply be ordered to integrate and they will comply (eventually; there would probably be some/much intransigence to begin with). Unless trans voices are arguing against that way through this issue, seems to me like the best, fastest option.
But an executive order could be countermanded the second a Republican President takes office. Obama doesn't want to do it the fastest way; he wants to do it in the way that will achieve long-lasting change. He did the same thing with Don't Ask Don't Tell. People were screaming about how he was passing the buck but a few years on, notice how not a single person is worried about gays serving openly.
I understand the impatience, but creating a process where change happens from within the Armed Forces is much more likely to stick.
posted by dry white toast at 9:24 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
But an executive order could be countermanded the second a Republican President takes office. Obama doesn't want to do it the fastest way; he wants to do it in the way that will achieve long-lasting change. He did the same thing with Don't Ask Don't Tell. People were screaming about how he was passing the buck but a few years on, notice how not a single person is worried about gays serving openly.
I understand the impatience, but creating a process where change happens from within the Armed Forces is much more likely to stick.
posted by dry white toast at 9:24 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
Of course, it won't, because no one will actually claim to be trans just so they can sleep in the woman's CHUs,
Unless you are running for president:
"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE," Huckabee said. "I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'
posted by 445supermag at 9:42 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Unless you are running for president:
"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE," Huckabee said. "I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'
posted by 445supermag at 9:42 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
@dry white toast: "Obama doesn't want to do it the fastest way; he wants to do it in the way that will achieve long-lasting change. He did the same thing with Don't Ask Don't Tell." Obama couldn't have undid Don't Ask Don't Tell with an executive order because that would be unconstitutional—it's part of checks and balances. From Obama himself at this town hall: "Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can simply end the policy."
posted by koavf at 11:03 PM on July 13, 2015
posted by koavf at 11:03 PM on July 13, 2015
Look, honestly, fuck the bathroom conversation.
No possible bathroom arrangement will have any impact whatsoever on the real problems that the military would have to solve in order to let trans people serve fairly and safely.
There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will protect trans servicemembers from rape and violence, or erase the armed forces' deeply sexist institutional culture. There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will address the biases that make cis people imagine trans women as aggressors or deceivers even in situations where we're obviously the victims, or prevent those biases from poisoning trans women's interactions with military discipline. There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will un-fuck the deeply fucked situation that those presumptions of aggression and deception put black trans women in. And on and on and on.
Compared to that shit, who pees where (or even who sleeps where) is utterly irrelevant. I don't care which side of the issue you're on — it's a trivializing derail.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:13 PM on July 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
No possible bathroom arrangement will have any impact whatsoever on the real problems that the military would have to solve in order to let trans people serve fairly and safely.
There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will protect trans servicemembers from rape and violence, or erase the armed forces' deeply sexist institutional culture. There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will address the biases that make cis people imagine trans women as aggressors or deceivers even in situations where we're obviously the victims, or prevent those biases from poisoning trans women's interactions with military discipline. There is no possible bathroom arrangement that will un-fuck the deeply fucked situation that those presumptions of aggression and deception put black trans women in. And on and on and on.
Compared to that shit, who pees where (or even who sleeps where) is utterly irrelevant. I don't care which side of the issue you're on — it's a trivializing derail.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:13 PM on July 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
I just want to see more people like that Australian general in military leadership; "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept."
Many of the problems you outline would be heavily ameliorated by the various armed forces taking sexual assault seriously. Is there anything stopping Obama from saying "you fix this right the hell now or we start trying service members in civilian courts"?
I mean, wasn't integration of African-American troops a straight up order from Eisenhower? I don't think there are any laws passed by congress that would prevent Obama issuing the orders I've mentioned, are there? The only thing lacking is the will. (And, yeah, a republican president could undo said orders three seconds after the oath. All the more reason to do it right now and get both ideas entrenched.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Many of the problems you outline would be heavily ameliorated by the various armed forces taking sexual assault seriously. Is there anything stopping Obama from saying "you fix this right the hell now or we start trying service members in civilian courts"?
I mean, wasn't integration of African-American troops a straight up order from Eisenhower? I don't think there are any laws passed by congress that would prevent Obama issuing the orders I've mentioned, are there? The only thing lacking is the will. (And, yeah, a republican president could undo said orders three seconds after the oath. All the more reason to do it right now and get both ideas entrenched.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:25 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Truman issued the executive order, but it took six years and Eisenhower to implement it. That's exactly why Obama isn't doing it that way.
posted by Etrigan at 11:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 11:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not confident it's going to take less than a few years anyway.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:44 PM on July 13, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:44 PM on July 13, 2015
I think Obama is doing the right thing in the right way. Though not from a military background, the appointment Of Amanda Simpson is a very good move towards these goals.
posted by clavdivs at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by clavdivs at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2015
Not kicking them out is a good place to start, don't you think? Why do we instantly have to have a discussion about bathrooms and genitalia to make that happen?
posted by Brocktoon at 12:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 12:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
FFFM, not so coincidentaly perhaps, Lieutenant General David Morrison's speech writer was Cate McGregor, the highest ranking transgender military officer in the world.
posted by Thella at 12:21 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Thella at 12:21 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Why do we instantly have to have a discussion about bathrooms and genitalia to make that happen?
Because it's a cheap shot that works every time.
It's like that annoying younger sibling, cousin, friends sibling, etc who you'd play arcade games with. Once they figure out that they can just mash one move over and over with a certain character and win as long as they do it fast enough... they don't try anything else.
Anyone who knows anything about the situation knows it's a super cheapass shot, but it's a really lazy debate tactic that shifts the rhetorical defense to the progressive team and lets the regressive team needle them with sealioning.
posted by emptythought at 2:47 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because it's a cheap shot that works every time.
It's like that annoying younger sibling, cousin, friends sibling, etc who you'd play arcade games with. Once they figure out that they can just mash one move over and over with a certain character and win as long as they do it fast enough... they don't try anything else.
Anyone who knows anything about the situation knows it's a super cheapass shot, but it's a really lazy debate tactic that shifts the rhetorical defense to the progressive team and lets the regressive team needle them with sealioning.
posted by emptythought at 2:47 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
A transgender soldier looks beyond celebration of Pentagon’s policy change.
posted by Sir Rinse at 4:44 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by Sir Rinse at 4:44 AM on July 14, 2015
While I'm glad a major news outlet is sort of trying for nuance and not all "yay, sunshine and roses", oh my god, that WaPo article's a disaster. We have "gays" as a noun, a hate group for "balance" and gratuitous photos of a shirtless, buff trans guy (because that's how we know trans people are just like us).
posted by hoyland at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I shouldn't just complain about things, but I recommend stopping reading when they finish quoting Ortega. That's when it starts going off the rails.
posted by hoyland at 5:03 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by hoyland at 5:03 AM on July 14, 2015
a hate group for "balance"
I'm no fan of the FRC, but they're more than just a hate group. The individual* they quote is a retired three-star general who still has tremendous clout in the Pentagon and with troops on the ground. It would be a mistake by the WaPo not to include his views, because they are part of the story.
* -- I'm not 100 percent sure whether I'm allowed under military law to use certain terminology for this particular person; generals have weird status vis-a-vis "retired".
posted by Etrigan at 5:28 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm no fan of the FRC, but they're more than just a hate group. The individual* they quote is a retired three-star general who still has tremendous clout in the Pentagon and with troops on the ground. It would be a mistake by the WaPo not to include his views, because they are part of the story.
* -- I'm not 100 percent sure whether I'm allowed under military law to use certain terminology for this particular person; generals have weird status vis-a-vis "retired".
posted by Etrigan at 5:28 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted; it'll keep things more on track if we can skip debating the existence of the military in this thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:40 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:40 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Meet The Trans Scholar Fighting Against The Campaign For Out Trans Military Service
“Trans people, trans organizations, the trans movement did not choose this battle,” Dean Spade says. The law professor says rich donors chose the issue, and maintains the focus will hurt other trans rights issues.
posted by andoatnp at 9:17 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
“Trans people, trans organizations, the trans movement did not choose this battle,” Dean Spade says. The law professor says rich donors chose the issue, and maintains the focus will hurt other trans rights issues.
posted by andoatnp at 9:17 AM on July 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older The horn plays "La Cucaracha". | What DO they say about the crazy ones Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
/me gets popcorn out to watch the attempts to define what those impediments are.
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:26 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]