The news media is all over that Bruce Springsteen cancels North Carolina concert over ‘bathroom law’ (via CNN.com):
Springsteen and his E Street Band were slated to perform at the Greensboro Coliseum this Sunday. The roughly 15,000 ticketholders will all be eligible for a refund. The newly enacted law requires individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificate, and has drawn fierce criticism for excluding legal protections from gay and transgender people.
The North Carolina law, as the article notes in a secondary fashion, invalidates a comprehensive LGBT anti-discrimination measures passed in Charlotte and prohibits any future local measures in the state. But the reporting and commentary is fixated on the bathroom issue.
Part of this is because transgender bathroom and locker room use has—along with forcing small businesses with religious objections to provide expressive services to same-sex marriages—become the dominant LGBT issue of the day. Employment discrimination, what’s that?
Along those lines, the Washington Post recently informed us that queasiness over using restrooms with the opposite sex is simply a matter of socialization and enculturation:
A bathroom bill wouldn’t be raised in some parts of Europe where restrooms are unisex. But the public bathroom here has regularly been a location of consternation for the puritanical, puri-panic-al United States: an American conundrum resulting from American sensibilities and American history.
Which is why so many suspect that gender-neutral bathrooms is the actual aim of progressive activists, and are responding with such vehemence.
Is this rightwing manipulation? Sure. But leftwing overreach has opened the door that reactionary politicians are now walking through.
P.S., I’ve traveled throughout Europe and don’t recall shared “unisex” (the author means mixed sex) restrooms, even in Scandinavia. But hey, if it serves the narrative.
More. Gay Washington Post columnist recounts:
I was having dinner with some LGBT colleagues when I excused myself and headed to the facilities — one labeled for men, the other for women, facing each other across a small hallway. Between them stood an employee, who looked me up and down and opened the men’s room door for me.
How polite? Hardly. Instead of thanking him, I explained how presumptuous he had been in deciding my bathroom preference for me. I tried in vain to explain how “gender identity” (the way individuals perceive themselves) is different from “biological sex” (generally indicated by a person’s genitalia, or sex assigned at birth).
Yes, for many progressives the aim is gender-neutral restrooms.
31 Comments for “More Evidence: All About the “T””
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Is this rightwing manipulation? Sure. But leftwing overreach has opened the door that reactionary politicians are now walking through.
The overreach was not rolling over when Republicans pushed through anti-marriage amendments in 30-odd states. All of this is reaction to Obergefell, and all of it is driven by the perception that the base must be thrown some red meat to keep the coalition intact. If you think I’m wrong, I invite you to attend the Republican Party platform deliberations later this year.
The bright spot is that Republican-aligned “libertarians” will score a major victory by seeing to it that “religious liberty” is effectively defined as “the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians”. A small step for a man, a big step for mankind.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Again, if gay Republicans and their libertarian allies want to change the GOP, then they have to be the ones to put in the work.
Right now the “Christian right” voters are being given red meat, so they dont vote in mass for the Prohibition party (I checked, they do still exist).
posted by Houndentenor on
The right has found the new talking point to justify anti-gay bigotry. “Equal rights but not special rights” won’t fly any more like it did in the 90s. And claiming we’re all out to get their kids isn’t cutting it any more either. So now they’ve found another target…trans people. They still don’t want us to have equal rights either, just like they weren’t ever for equal rights back in the 90s. Stephen, you aren’t this stupid.
And so what if some leftists want gender neutral bathrooms. Why not let people pee where they should obviously go? This is not that hard. It’s just a talking point that is only convincing to people who are already bigots. Shame on you, Stephen, for playing along.
posted by Kosh III on
The law is about more than where you pee.
It forbids city/county gov’t from passing anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation.
It forbids It forbids city/county gov’t from passing a minimum wage different from what the state dictates.
So much for GOP blather about local control.
It’s all about gay-bashing. When will gay Republicans criticize their Lords and Masters in the Party and Corporations? Never apparently.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Which is why so many suspect that gender-neutral bathrooms is the actual aim of progressive activists, and are responding with such vehemence.
A gentle reminder: While a few “progressive activists” may want to see unisex bathrooms, it is the Republican Party that is making it happen, forcing transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, and vice versa.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Gender-neutral bathrooms in the U.S. are not the same as unisex bathrooms. They are typically single person bathrooms that can be used by anyone – including parents with young children.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gender-neutral bathrooms in the U.S. are not the same as unisex bathrooms.
I gather than multi-user bathrooms shared by men and women (as mandated now in North Carolina, regardless of the labeling on the door) are “gender-neutral” and single-user bathrooms, which either gender can use, are “unisex”?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Typically, when bathrooms that are labelled “gender neutral” are single-use, whereas those labeled “unisex” bathrooms (like they have in Europe) are multi-person facilities open to all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
ypically, when bathrooms that are labelled “gender neutral” are single-use, whereas those labeled “unisex” bathrooms (like they have in Europe) are multi-person facilities open to all.
It is always a good thing to learn something new. I wouldn’t have guessed that there was a difference.
Single-use gender-neutral bathrooms aren’t an issue. At least in Wisconsin, such bathrooms are common. And, as far as I can tell, few issues have arisen over “appearance appropriate” use of gender-specific bathrooms by transgenders. Both men’s bathrooms and women’s bathrooms have stalls, affording privacy.
The issues arise when the government goes boneheaded and decides, as it did in North Carolina, that birth-certificate gender determines who uses which gender-specific bathrooms. As a lot of people have pointed out, North Carolina law now mandates that transgender men use women’s bathrooms, and vice versa, unless the birth-certificate gender has been changed.
This leads to a hell of a potential mess, as transgender men, by all appearances indistinguishable from cis men, are forced to use women’s bathrooms, and vice versa.
I imagine the reaction that would ensue if my friend Paula, who has not yet completed the surgical correction but who looks, acts and dresses as a woman, walked into a men’s bathroom, and I can imagine the reaction that would ensue if a man I went to high school with, who has had the surgical correction and who looks, acts and dresses as a man, walked into a woman’s bathroom.
And that is exactly what the morons pushing the “bathroom bills” are setting up for all of us, all of us.
North Carolina, at least, has a provision that allows transgenders to use “appearance appropriate” facilities if and after a person’s birth certificate has been changed. But other pending legislation, catering to conservative Christian values, declares birth gender “immutable”, as does Mississippi’s new law, which refers to “an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth”. Run that tape through to the end and see where it takes us.
The “bathroom bills” are remarkably stupid legislation. The only ray of light is that the laws will be tossed on constitutional grounds before too many years pass. But until then, there is going to be real trouble in North Carolina and other states that enact such legislation.
You know a lot more about transgender issues than the rest of us do, Mike, because of your experience with HERO. And the more you write about it, the more the rest of us will learn.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Thanks for the encouragement.
The effects of this type of legislative persecution on the trans community is especially pernicious — as are the efforts to roll-back protections based on the bathroom lie that even Stephen gives some credence to. … and while those of us in the GLB community are suitably alarmed about the religious liberty nonsense bills, the T community is being used as the primary targeting instrument to take ALL of us backwards.
After the HERO loss, for example, calls to our local mental health help lines spiked by some 200% because (rightly) members of the trans community not only felt unsafe but targeted. More than 25 trans women were killed last year in the U.S. — and many more were subject to violence (more so than usual).
So — for those that want to ask — ask away. I’ll do my best to answer as a trans ally.
posted by Jim Michaud on
This bathroom hysteria is just plain nuts. You can talk sensibly until the cows come home, people won’t hear it. And wouldn’t you know it, up here in Maine Michael Heath has resurfaced. The civil rights law for GLBT folk has been on the books since December 2005. Mikey has seen an opening. Yep, he’s announced plans to gather signatures, put the question on the ballot and wipe the law from the books. He sees the successful ginning up of hysteria and wants Maine to join in. Sigh.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This bathroom hysteria is just plain nuts. You can talk sensibly until the cows come home, people won’t hear it.
Rational discourse was our next-to-most important tool in the marriage equality fight (the most important was the enormous number of gays and lesbians who came out to family, friends, neighbors and co-workers), because our rationality contrasted so sharply with the fear-mongering hysteria of conservative Christians and their Republican allies.
My hope is that we will stick with the high road in this fight, and let conservative Christians and Republicans get down in the mud, yet again.
As was the case with marriage equality, we will lose in the beginning, but in the long run the lies, the crass political cynicism, the religious hypocrisy, the substantive hollowness, and the bigoted animus driving these laws will become apparent to all, and we’ll prevail.
The fight won’t go on as long as the marriage equality fight, simply because the laws being passed have negative consequences that are plain to see. How can Republicans claim to save us from the fearful specter of men in women’s bathrooms when the laws they are hawking mandate that result?
My guess is that the this time around, the “bathroom bill” fight will be over in a couple of years, losing stream after this election cycle.
The demise of the religious/political coalition pushing these insane “bathroom bills” will be hastened if the Republican establishment is successful in its efforts to block Trump and nominate Cruz, a sanctimonious conservative Christian who oozes animus toward gays and lesbians, because Cruz will put a face on the party’s animus.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Thanks for the words of comfort, Tom. One good thing about this is Michael Heath has long worn out his welcome in Maine. His confreres are Peter LaBarbera and Scott Lively. So only the fringe of the fringe is with him.
posted by Wilberforce on
The gay mainstream never tire of fighting for non issues and bad strategy. First marriage instead of enda, now this. Frankly, I could care less about trans people’s bathroom obsession, except that it’s another waste of time that’ll delay moving our agenda forward. But can I ask? When do you noble warriors think we will put some weight behind enda, if ever?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Trans people do not have a bathroom obsession, the have the need to use the facilities just like everyone else.
As to ENDA — there’s little hope of that being pushed forward in a GOP Congress, even if you left out the trans protections.
Marriage was thrust to the center because of a number of factors, which just goes to show that politics is chaotic when it comes to social changes.
And we “noble warriors” are working the issue at the state & local level — because that’s the doable game right now and where the battles are being fought (and lost right now).
posted by Houndentenor on
Since when is needing to pee an obsession? Common decency and a little respect are all they are asking for. That’s is far too much for a minority group to expect from today’s right wing. Shame on you for playing along.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Since when is needing to pee an obsession?”
It only becomes one if we need to go really bad and have nowhere to do it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gay Washington Post columnist recounts:
I was having dinner with some LGBT colleagues when I excused myself and headed to the facilities — one labeled for men, the other for women, facing each other across a small hallway. Between them stood an employee, who looked me up and down and opened the men’s room door for me.
How polite? Hardly. Instead of thanking him, I explained how presumptuous he had been in deciding my bathroom preference for me. I tried in vain to explain how “gender identity” (the way individuals perceive themselves) is different from “biological sex” (generally indicated by a person’s genitalia, or sex assigned at birth).
Yes, for many progressives the aim is gender-neutral restrooms.
And how, may I ask, did you get to this conclusion? The article doesn’t support your conclusion, and the quote doesn’t, either. But, what the hell, conservative thinking hasn’t been reality or fact based for years and years.
Here’s a thought: A recommendation for a quick and much needed read.
posted by Houndentenor on
Here’s how political “logic” works in 2016. Find one person saying something nutty on the other side and that represents them all. Similar nuts on your own side are the fringe and not to be taken seriously.
Also, (this should go without saying, but) the correct response when someone opens a door for you is “thank you.” Good manners are so rare these days that they should be encouraged.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’ve begun to think this blog exists simply to keep itself going. There are definitely real issues out there that a right-of-center independent political site could explore, but IGF always aims for the lowest-hanging fruit.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Interested in starting up another site?
posted by Lori Heine on
Not really. I had a blog for a couple of years, but posting every day was just too much.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There are definitely real issues out there that a right-of-center independent political site could explore, but IGF always aims for the lowest-hanging fruit.
Lori, there’s a reason that a Republican-aligned “independent” site focuses on a handful of anti-LGBT talking points: IGF aims for the issues and memes that are most likely to be politically productive fruit for the Republican Party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I come from Wisconsin, the home of “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, which has a long and active progressive political tradition, dating well back beyond the beginning of the last century, and our state Democratic Party is strongly progressive in nature, echoing the core principles of the progressive movement more so than Democratic parties in other states.
I do not share all of the goals of the progressive movement, or consider myself a progressive, but I know a lot of progressives, folks who strongly support public education, conservation, better working conditions and wages for workers, organized labor, rational regulation of business practices, and so on. Bernie Sanders won Wisconsin large because he fits right in with the state’s Democrats, as would Elizabeth Warren.
I deal with progressives day in and day out, and have for years. I can’t say that I’ve ever heard anyone, progressive or not, advocating the demise of gender-specific bathrooms. But then, I don’t hang out with “libertarians” in the Alphabet-Street bars, so I probably wouldn’t have the opportunity, since Republican-aligned “libertarians” and their conservative Christian allies seem to be the only ones who think that there is a a massive threat afoot.
I frankly think that Stephen’s rich fantasy life is at work, yet again, concocting nonsense.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
1. Unless conservatives wam
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Want to put every transgender person onto welfare, they need to be able to use the WC.
I would think that conservatives would be opposed to adding to welfare rolls, but if trans folk can only use the wc in their own home, if that, then their chances of being a productive tax payer really drops down.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“Yes, for many progressives the aim is gender-neutral restrooms.”
Am I missing something? Is there something sinister or subversive about gender neutral restrooms? I’m seeing more and more of them in public places, and they seem to serve the No. 1 & No. 2 needs of all equally well, without regard to genital anatomy. I had no idea they were part of any progressive “aim” other than avoiding the seat.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, Stephen, there are some activists who want something that’s not going to happen. That’s not a movement nor is it the majority opinion. It’s one person in a very liberal venue. Of course you live in deep blue but advocate for the deep red politics you’d never want to endure for yourself. For every person like the one you describe in your addendum there are thousands who think trans people should just “hold it until they get home.” Please join reality and get out of the activist bubble.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
As an aside, businesses do sometimes prefer having one bathroom that can be used by men, women, parents with young kids, disabled people.
Then you have situations where their is only one functioning bathroom. Something that happens at say, a rock concert or a large outdoor festival.
Beyond the malice involved, and it is malice, I can thing of numerous problems with this law.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I think that things will get very interesting when (as an example) a man transitioning into a female has to keep using the mens room until the process is complete and the state clears the paperwork.
posted by Fritz Keppler on
I’m reminded of situations during the early days of motor vehicle travel. In order to discourage use of the machines, some jurisdictions insisted that every time a vehicle came to an intersection, the driver had to get out and look down both directions of the cross street, then fire off noisemaking devices in order to make sure that people nearby were aware of his presence. The driver could then be arrested for disturbing the peace. It seems that a similar ruckus might arise from a transgender person who is trying to obey the law.