Bruce Springsteen and North Carolina bathroom laws(102 Posts)
Bruce Springsteen has just issued the following statement:
As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the “bathroom” law. HB2 — known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act — dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments. Taking all of this into account, I feel that this is a time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters. As a result, and with deepest apologies to our dedicated fans in Greensboro, we have canceled our show scheduled for Sunday, April 10th. Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.
Bruce Springsteen thinks more of trans rights than women's rights.
Disappointing but I'm not a fan anyway so don't know if this is par for the course with him.
I am a fan, and I am so upset. It's another example of how the transgender issue is being accepted by the liberal minded. I bet he thinks most transgender people have undergone surgery...
Good on him for standing up for something be believes in
I'd be interested to know if he also boycotts shows in states where abortion is illegal, or if he plays in countries where women have been imprisoned for having miscarriages, etc. Surely someone so hot on equality wouldn't play anywhere like that either?
The law is about a lot more than bathrooms, as his statement saya. The media spin is the trans issue. But yes, i hope he extends his stance to eg abortion restrictions - bet thats too controversial tho
The basic muddle is that there is no hierarchy of protection in "equalities' as the homosexual "v" Muslim/Jewish/Christian disputes are simultaneously playing out.
Laws on TOP are not part of "equalities" and I think the wrong comparison here.
And why am I putting "equalities" in inverted commas? Because some seem to want to be more equal than others. (When actually that is not possible, Orwell wrote it as satire).
So if you are in favour of minority rights, then you have to accept that the privileged majority group to which they do not belong has to give a bit. Those happy with their born sex are the privileged majority here.
Of course, it's not compulsory to believe that societies should have special dispensations in any way for those minorities, and that it's OK to brand them all as criminal, perverted or in some other way defective and unfit to use public facitilities because they'll abuse other users.
But it seems to be heresy to point out that stereotyping is wrong. And that a more tolerant society is widely believed to be good.
But i cant let lie 'those happy with their born sex are the privileged majority'
Its about gender not sex
Gender is a social construct
Noone actually asks anyone if they are happy with the stereotypes attached to them because of their genitals. If they did, i bet a lot more would be 'unhappy with their gender'
'Do you like being paid 1/3 less because of sexism?' Hell yeah
I don't want to share a public toilet with someone who has a penis. Even if they are wearing a skirt and lipstick.
Isn't it simply the case that most people (men and women) are of the opinion that if a person is so seriously unhappy apparently being the sex they were born in, and it would make them happy if they get to pretend to be a woman (which is how I think the vast majority of people actually view it), then why not just let them ?
In this environment it seems obvious that shouting "No, no no, you don't get to call yourself a woman" makes you sound a bit mean. Men aren't saying that FtM trans people can't use men's bathroom so saying that it will lead to a massive increase in rapes as hulking great men will just say they are women to get into female only safe spaces, will just have people dismissing your claims as "man hating" and it does sound like an unreasonable fear of men. People don't seriously believe letting effeminate young men use female bathrooms is a fundamental threat to women. I imagine Springsteen feels the same way.
Far more interesting is the question of why it is precisely they thing having a vagina and breasts will make them a different person (or the person they really are or whatever), it seems a ridiculous thing to me, but such talk is practically banned these days.
I suspect he's not thought much about it and is just trying to be supportive
It's an excellent point about women's rights though - lots of states where those are being trampled on!
People don't seriously believe letting effeminate young men use female bathrooms is a fundamental threat to women.
Yes some of us believe letting men use female bathrooms is a threat to women. They are not all young and effeminate . If you care to Google, you will see there are many times men have accessed women's toilets to abuse. It puts women and children at risk.
'Reorganising of human rights' my arse. It's throwing women's rights to a safe space aside aside for a tiny minority of men.
The privileged group here are men, as per usual.
Springsteen is just drumming up publicity. I doubt he cares about either women's rights or trans rights. He's just trying to be relevant. I say this as a fan of his music.
Anna you can [hmmm] all you want, the point is that your views are not held by the majority. I remember the fuss caused when that Israeli won Eurovision and combined a dress and a beard, this is because it is unusual to see a bearded hulking bloke also dressed in "feminine" clothes.
Are men who want to abuse women in female toilets currently not clever enough to disguise themselves as women and use a female toilet to get access at the moment ? whether the law says it's ok to call be in the toilet if you say you are a woman or not, they can still get in today.
What fine says ^^
How do people know they want to be a man or a woman if they've never experienced life that way?
You are who you are, regardless of what's between your legs. It's what's inside your head that makes you, and theres no medical procedure to change that yet.
I think you will find my views are very much in the majority. I can't link but there are several other recent threads about this topic with plenty of examples of men accessing women's safe places in order to abuse. I agree, someone who happens to look very effeminate may pass unchallenged into a women's toilet but many trans men are big and hairy. At the moment, at least we can challenge those ones. Do you really want any man at all to be able to share toilet space with women and children? Do you have daughters?
Anna when you say men accessing women's safe spaces to abuse them. Are you meaning men or trans women?
Am disappointed in Bruce. Presumably his fans have bought tickets and are now being punished for living in a state which has laws he doesn't like. Agree with pp who said they would be interested to see his attitude to states which don't support women's rights to abortion.
As for the trans bathroom issue, to me it is simple. If you want to be treated as a women, then have the full gender reassignment surgery. That's commitment to being female and in those circumstances I would agree that a person should be able to access the same services as all other women. If you don't want to convert fully then accept you will need to use the men's bathroom and stay out of female spaces.
Men (non trans) may use the transgender law for their own advantage.
Springsteen spoke out in support of abortion rights and the risk of challenge to Roe v Wade when he campaigned for Obama.
To me, segregation of things like toilets etc is based on sex not gender. If we are going to allow people to choose which toilets they use then essentially we have unisex facilities. It would therefore make more sense to legally make everything unisex because then at least businesses and services would design facilities knowing they would be shared and therefore afford more privacy. I'm not saying this is what should happen, it may seems like a pointless double standard.
It is unfair to brand people who are worried about safety as irrational or bigoted when the vast majority of crime, violent crime and sex based crime is committed by people born with penises. People born without penises* are physically less able to fight off said attackers, are more likely to be blamed for attacks when they occur and are likely (in the case of sex based crimes) to be targeted because of their lack of penis*.
*in not suggesting women are essentially men without penises.
I'm not sure that's an answer Anna but women's safe spaces aren't really safe if men are already accessing them surely? Regardless of the trans issue
I think the point is mide that currently a woman could challenge that person, they could ask if they should be there, they could go to management for help or call the police. None of that would be afforded if the rules change.
The woman would have committed a hate crime for asking or seeking support.
Join the discussion
Please login first.