Bruce Springsteen and North Carolina bathroom laws

[sparechange]

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.

Thoughts?

The point is, he was only caught because he'd taken steps (though rather oddly) to disguise what he was up to. He was sitting inside a cubicle so not obvious. He wouldn't need to do that under new legislation. He could just walk in.

I posted that story because I think it is important to remember that some sexual criminals don't need to physically assault people, that they do go to extraordinary lengths to commit their crimes, that there are people who prey on women who you might not suspect eg you can't look at a person and know if they are safe or not.

It's too easy to brush off all concerns as scaremongering.

I think with regards to my other point was that everyone has their own comfort level and I think that should be respected.

The problem with the North Carolina legislation is that it is really quite bad for LGB rights. Yes it helps women's rights in the context the bathroom issue but the rest of it definitely doesn't help women's rights. Once more lesbians are at the bottom of the pile. So overall I'm against it. But it is another reason why it should be LGB not LGBT because the T rights do trample over other people's rights (namely women).

It is significant though that the biggest outcry is because men can't go into women's bathrooms. I wonder why that may be .

I don't want to share a public toilet with someone who has a penis

Doesn't this come over as a little, err...phobic ? Why do you feel uniquely vulnerable in a toilet ? Also - as has been repeatedly pointed out, you don't really know whether they have a penis or not, even today. Men & boys have to share toilets with "people with penises", if "people with penises" are so dangerous, shouldn't they be prevented from entering any toilets !!!

The rush to the most extreme outcome, men will kill women by pretending they are trans as an excuse to get into traditionally female spaces, women's sports will simply become men who claim to be women because they aren't good enough to compete with men.....is this a pattern of thought you have about other things ?

And this legislation wasn't made to help women's rights. It was to ostracise trans* more. It's not coming from a benevolent place.

I worked for a long time in an FE college. Lots of girls used to eat their lunch in the toilets, spend their whole lunchtime there

I think an FE college would do better to address why its public spaces were not being used for the purpose of eating lunch rather than a place entirely inappropriate and to discourage any one hanging around in the toilets ; why there needed to be a secret place and was that desirable?

And having had a year of being badly bullied by the teenage girls who hung about in the toilets at my school as they thought it was safe for them from the point of view of staff not coming near them I found it intimidating using the loos when they were in occupation.

befine the problem is we can't know who is a sexual predator and who isn't. What we do know is that they will almost certainly be male. Using sex segregated spaces means we can easily give added protection to 50% of the population. A 50% that a physically weaker and likely to be the victims. Removing sex segregation will not make men and boys safer.

We live in a society that that values privacy, especially from the opposite sex so even if the statistics on sex offenders were equal, we still shouldn't demand that everyone suddenly be OK with being naked in front of the opposite sex.

Across the world we still shame women for what they wear and how revealing it is. That somehow our bodies force law abiding, good men to inflict violence upon us. Even in this country we pass judgement on women and on the victims of sex based crimes to justify the actions of criminal men. Against that backdrop is it any wonder that some women (I think probably many) would feel uncomfortable being naked or partially unclothed either infront of or near men in spaces that are often secluded?

I'm thinking about this from the other direction too.
If I'm wearing jeans and a jumper could I just decide that I identify as male and stroll into the mens toilets, where there are men stood with their penises out to urinate? I imagine the men would be understandably pissed off at a woman wandering into a male only space just as much as the other way round.

I have been to many events - horse racing, concerts etc - where women have got fed up queueing for their own toilets and just used the men's cubicles. Nobody really cares.

On the other hand I've only done it once and at least one man was not happy at all. If there are just a row of cubicles then there should not be an issue but if there are urinals then I would agree with Pipbin.

This debate does seem to get stuck in the toilet debate and whilst that does not really bother me I have still not seen a satisfactory response as to how self determination will work in the situation where a woman needs or wants intimate health care to be provided only by a person who does not have a penis.

Anyway here's another less enthusiastic voice

Transgenderism: a top-down politics of identity | Life | Love and sex | spiked
www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/transgenderism-a-top-down-politics-of-identity/17938#.Vwkb73RwbqA

I've seen a couple of places saying this has an effect on gay rights
I haven't studied the whole bill, but wondering how that is the case?

As other posters have pointed out, the law in NC and other states that have enacted similar laws are much broader than the transgender issue. In fact, for the people behind these bills, transgender issues are not their main concern at all. Anti-gay animus is the driving force. All of these laws have come as a backlash against the Supreme Court decision that legalized same sex marriage in the US. They are fueled by deeply homophobic beliefs of the religious right. But they cynically use the transgender issue out front because it garners more support. Trust me, the last thing these people are concerned about is women's rights.

Windy he's forever playing shows in Ireland so no, he clearly doesn't have a problem with places where abortion is illegal...

From what I've read DelicateAir under the proposed changes after the review by the women and equalities committee, justifiable discrimination would not apply to transgender persons. So you can specify a female carer but in reality the person who attends you could be male or female.

Seneca, surely it would get more support to highlight both areas of discrimination?

YY Seneca, that's my reading of it too. That these are regressive anti LGB laws that have the bathroom bit tagged on. They are not coming at this from a protecting women and girls point of view, but from a deeply homophobic one.

And, if Springsteen et all are that worried about the rights of the oppressed, then I'm sure they will follow this up with a boycott of all states that have recently instituted laws that seriously curtail or in some cases effectively prevent women from accessing free birth control, family planning advice and abortion services.

Nah, didn't think so either.

Yes, abortion is technically legal in all states, again it was a Supreme Court decision that made it so, but reproductive rights are seriously under assault in many states. One of the reasons that the upcoming US presidential election is so important for women's rights is that the Republicans are hell bent on overturning that decision, and with a couple of additional right wing Supreme Court appointments, they just might succeed. The problem is that if Springsteen boycotted all of the states that have abrogated women's reproductive rights, he might as well just retire.

To quote one of the great philosophers of the 1970s.

The problem is that if Springsteen boycotted all of the states that have abrogated women's reproductive rights, he might as well just retire.

What an irreplaceable loss to the world . . .

At the moment if a man comes into a ladie, he can be challenged and removed

Under what law?

Put the trans issue to the side for a moment, is there any law preventing men, any man from using toilets designated for women?

I don't honestly know if it is specifically enshrined in law. Possibly not if all he is doing is what one is meant to do and then leaving.

Entering a loo intended for the opposite sex may of itself cause a crime- in Scotland it might be breach of the peace (a catch all for conduct which feels wrong but doesn't fall into any other category)

I suppose facts and circumstances- at a crowded festival or concert perhaps where there are lots of people around I can't see that anyone could really make much of it if either sex used the loo with the greater capacity and behaved themselves. This could be women using the men's but I could imagine an event where men are in greater attendance - would it be terrible if a man desperately needed a cubicle and used the ladies?

And obviously any harassment/ peeping/flashing is a crime regardless of where and by whom.

At the moment if a man comes into a ladie, he can be challenged and removed

I think this may come from the fact that many places which have public loos are not public places but private places to which the public are permitted.

A shop, restaurant, bar, shopping centre , theme park, cinema etc can bar or remove members of the public (you hear occasionally of permanent interdicts being put on known shop lifters) as long as the reason does not breach discrimination rules. It seems logical then the owners of these properties can set rules as to the management of their property including segregated toilets.

I think what Lass describes is essentially the legal situation in the US state that I live in. I have a couple of times used men's restrooms at festivals when there was a long line for the women's and my need was urgent.

"Do you really think anyone at the moment has the right to hang out in school toilets or public toilets to just sit there watching other people?"

From today's news headlines, that is exactly what sexual predators do.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/09/andy-richter-recalls-hastert-sitting-lazyboy-chair-near-boys-shower/82829860/

"CHICAGO — Comedian Andy Richter, who attended the high school where Dennis Hastert taught before entering politics, recalled on Twitter one of the more disturbing episodes of alleged misconduct by the former House speaker during his time as a high school wrestling coach and teacher....One of the victims, identified in court documents as "Individual D," told prosecutors that Hastert "put a 'Lazyboy'-type chair in direct view of the shower stalls in the locker room where he sat while the boys showered."

"'I went to Yorkville HS '80-'84 & I remember this chair. Purportedly 'to keep boys from fighting,' Richter posted."

From today's news headlines, that is exactly what sexual predators do

And he is being prosecuted for it.

lass the logic that we should make women and girls less safe because we can always prosecute abusers is pure misogyny.

Also, by the same logic trans women should continue using male facilities and if they're harassed and abused we can always just prosecute the perpetrators