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?

And experience tells us our abusers get away with it more than 99% of the time so forgive me if I don't take much comfort in the possibility of prosecution. But in any case I can't help but think that the focus of discussion should be on shelters, rape counselling services and intimate personal care services, not washrooms and changing areas.

It is important to discuss this though; some of these shops have communal changing rooms and what about swimming pools? It's bad enough having my young daughter shout out, "Mummy - why's that woman got no pubic hair?" Can you imagine it if she saw a full frontal naked transgender woman? (No surgery?!) Seriously though, I don't want her seeing penises in a woman-only space. We need to be safe.

I do think that the discussion may be somewhat different in the US for many reasons. In the US, many domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers historically have served men as well as women, including transgender people.

As to the restroom issue, more and more public places in the US now have gender-neutral single use restrooms available. Hopefully, this will be the norm in most places in the not too distant future.

Ah, I just came here to post about this, after reading the comments...

I don't want to share a public toilet with someone who has a penis. Even if they are wearing a skirt and lipstick.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I've read a few of these bathroom topics now, and I'm curious how this works in reverse (transgender men using women's spaces). For instance would you be happy with someone like Fred McConnell (who has a vagina) walking into a women's changing rooms or toilets?: twitter.com/fredmcconnell/status/489108375893209090

It's just if you say someone has to have a vagina to use a women's toilet, then you're opening up the same set of problems, aren't you? Any would-be rapist can still access the women's toilets, they just have to say they're a pre-op transgender man instead of a transgender woman.

I dont really care what bathroom transmen use and am quite happy for them to use womens loos. They are no more a threat to women than any other woman. 99% of transwomen dont pass - they look exactly like men in dresses. If they passed and were post surgery, none of this would be such an issue as it would not be possible to tell. There would still be issues but for your everyday 'woman in changing room scenario' , it wouldnt be a big deal. Men tend not to feel physically threatened by women, plus transmen are more likely to pass. I see it as up to men to campaign about transmen using their facilities if they dont want it to happen. My concern is about protecting female only spaces.

I don't fully understand this, the BBC amongst others are billing this as an anti-gay law, and now Bryan Adams has joined in:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468
My feminist and liberal friends seem to be delighted by this, sharing the story of facebook with high praise for both singers .

It is an antigay law - the restroom element is just part of it.

Yes, but my real life feminist friends seem to fully support the singer's boycott and fully support the LGBT community, and don't seem concerned about toilets in the way that this MN forum is. I'm wondering if they aren't aware of those implications.

They are perhaps neoliberal feminists?

They are perhaps neoliberal feminists?

Or feminists, like me, who refuse to align ourselves with the homophobic religious right in the US. The right is using the transgender issue to try to garner support. What they are primarily interested in is to enact anti-gay laws. It's all a backlash against the Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal in all states in the US.

Bryan Adams has cancelled a show in Missisippi.

Bryan Adams cancels Mississippi concert over new religious law - www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36013468

I am aware of the idea of my enemy's enemy is my friend but it's a bit difficult if one's new found friend also (probably) supports the death penalty but opposes gun control , abortion, contraception and gay rights.

"but my real life feminist friends seem to fully support the singer's boycott and fully support the LGBT community, and don't seem concerned about toilets in the way that this MN forum is."

Just to add that the lesbian community isn't totally behind hitching the T to the LGB. And many of us are aware of the adverse consequences of this attempted linkage. So, one side uses the T loos issue in order to garner support for what is actually an anti-LG marriage agenda, whilst another side tries to use the gay-rights agenda to slip a gender-not-sex loos clause in. And either way, frankly, women (and lesbians) seem to be the ones getting the sticky end of the stick!

To add to Lass's list: opposition to welfare, advocacy of teaching creationism in the schools, advocacy of corporal punishment of children (with implements), opposition to environmental protection, diversion of public money from state schools to religious schools, and the list goes on . . .

You get Iran as well remember, using the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic.

So when is he going to boycott states who have banned abortion?

Oh silly me, abortion only affects women doesn't it.

No state in the US has banned abortion.

The right to abortion services was established by a Supreme Court decision in the 1970s. It was and has remained very controversial. States can regulate abortion services to a certain extent under their broad right to regulate medical services within a state, but the right to an abortion is a federally protected right under the Constitution. Some states have tried in essence to regulate the right away, and there has been a dance back and forth for years between some of these states and the federal courts, with the result that the basic right has been upheld. There are, however, some states in which access, especially geographic access, is limited.

Republicans are hell bent on overturning the Supreme Court decision that made abortion rights federally protected. It is possible that they could succeed if they managed to get a few more right wing justices on the Court, which is one reason that the upcoming election is so important for women’s reproductive rights.

I know this is a bit OT but this is a good piece that explains a little how certain states are doing their level best to put abortion clinics out of business through 'back door' legislation that has nothing to do with the actual legislation but to make it impossible for women to have access to abortion clinics.

It wouldn't be that difficult for 'the boss' to be aware of the states where this is such a huge issue, and make a stand for something important for women.

The Bryan Adams thing is interesting.

He's happy to play in Egypt where same sex relationships are illegal, and are punishable by prison with hard labour.

I think both sides are playing political games with trans issues.

Most 'ordinary' people when they think about trans issues can not agree with the idea that a man can actually become a woman by declaring that they identify as a woman. The longer they spend thinking about it and the potential implications the less they agree.

The opposite is true of issues like gay marriage. I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

So it suits the right wing in the US to make a good argument, against men being treated as if they were actually women. They can then convince everyone the liberals are all totally bonkers and use this to pursue their anti gay agenda.

Sorry, yes, I worded that badly, not legally banned, just to all intents and purpose banned because the majority of women can't practically access it.

The Texas law is before the Supreme Court now. That law's effect is to seriously limit geographic availability in a very big state. Much will depend on the outcome of that case.

Once a tradesman take testosterone their propensity to commit crime against women and children also increases, but it doesn't reach men's levels. Transwomen commit sexual crime and violence at the same rate as men.

Does Bruce think men should also come into women's toilets?

Hi all. Would someone post the list of trans (or pretending to be trans) males who have attacked women in female-only spaces? I remember seeing such a post but can't find it now.

I try to avoid this subject on FB but a friend is claiming that there has never been any problem with allowing trans in female spaces and I can't take it anymore. Thank you.