A Quick Comment on Springsteen and North Carolina

bruce-springsteen1

A lot of people are asking me about Bruce Springsteen’s decision to cancel his North Carolina concert in the wake of the new law that requires trans-gendered people to use the public restroom that corresponds to the gender on their birth certificate.

I feel bad for the Springsteen fans who have been waiting for this Greensboro concert.  I am guessing that there are Springsteen fans on both sides of this debate. Springsteen’s politics are liberal.  His music–especially some of his recent stuff– is driven by progressive ideals and democratic inclusiveness.  But his music also appeals very strongly to traditional gender roles. When you listen to Springsteen it is clear that men are men and women are women.

I am looking forward to seeing the Boss next Monday night in State College.

2 thoughts on “A Quick Comment on Springsteen and North Carolina

  1. new law that requires trans-gendered people to use the public restroom that corresponds to the gender on their birth certificate

    This begs the question a bit, since “trans-gendered” is not yet a Supreme Court-mandated constitutional construct. At the moment, you are either a man or a woman.

    But his music also appeals very strongly to traditional gender roles. When you listen to Springsteen it is clear that men are men and women are women.

    If so, perhaps Mr. Springsteen will go back and scrub the cis-offensive passages from his canon.

    Like

  2. My wife had coworkers planning to go see Springsteen. I wonder how many people realize that this law was (a) not voted on by the people of North Carolina and (b) railroaded through the state legislature in a manner that ought to make all Americans cringe regardless of their own opinions on the matter.

    I also know of a couple who’s having their wedding in NC and wants to do NC goody bags, but they refuse to use any company that hasn’t come out in full opposition to HB2; silence is a deal breaker for them.

    Personally, I find the wording of the bill troubling; depending on one’s interpretation of the law, a single mother wouldn’t be legally allowed to take her son to the restroom. I know that isn’t the bill’s intent, but that’s how it could be construed.

    Needless to say, it’s brought out the claws on both sides here in my neck of the woods (Coastal NC), but very few seem to have actually read the law and are relying on their preferred media outlet to shape their views and arguments.

    Like

Comments are closed.