October 2007

Try for a moment to imagine an America where equal opportunity really does mean everyone — even people who are transgender. That was the legislative vision the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was supposed to uphold. But then came the recent Congressional shenanigans that have threatened to leave transgender people in the lurch and out of the bill.
         
Here’s the deal: In 31 states it’s perfectly legal to fire someone just for being lesbian, gay or bisexual, and in 39 states for being transgender. So the need for an anti-discrimination bill is compelling. Today, it is illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, and disability.

It’s time to add sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to that list.
          
However, the most recent version of ENDA only adds sexual orientation; gender identity and expression have been stripped out.

That might seem like an insignificant detail. After all, aren’t transgender people just a tiny minority? Why should the rest of us care if they get fired from their jobs or don’t get hired at all?
           
Permit me to offer a personal perspective. My husband is a transgender man. We were married this past New Year’s Eve. When I first met Marcus, he was known as Margery. Not until he was 40 did he feel brave enough to face down the prejudice and act on what he had felt since childhood — that the female body he had been born into was the wrong sex. Thanks to modern medicine, Margery was able to medically transition and legally become Marcus.
           
Unlike many transgender people who get fired when they transition, Marcus did not have to worry about his job. His employer, a major New York Stock Exchange firm, was enlightened: The HR department even did a Transgender 101 seminar for his co-workers. His firm is one of the 152 Fortune 500 companies that recognize that giving transgender employees equal treatment simply makes good business sense, and have the written policies to back that conviction up.
           
Margery had been a successful stockbroker before the transition; Marcus notified his clients of the change and went on to become an even more successful broker afterwards. His company promoted him, and several local magazines even named Marcus one of the top brokers in our state. He’s continuing to do what he’s always done well, which would seem to be a lot more productive for society than having him languish, as too many transgender people do, on the unemployment rolls.
           
Marcus’s story has a happy ending. But he’s one of the lucky ones.

Other transgender people, or even those who aren’t conventionally masculine or feminine, may not be so lucky.

Now, think about yourself. Do you perfectly conform to traditional gender roles? Few people do. I know I don’t, and come to think of it, neither do my parents: My businessman father is the family cook and my artist mother is a welder. Dropping protections for transgender people in ENDA means that other forms of gender nonconformity also won’t be protected.

By covering gender identity and expression, any woman who doesn’t act 100 percent “ladylike” in the workplace or any man who might, on occasion, be perceived as “soft” or “gentle” would have received legal backing on the job.

So, if you’re not a pretty, petite, demure woman, or a big, strong, tough-talking man, it’s probably in your own best interest to lobby for an inclusive ENDA.

Transgender people might be at the far end of the gender identity spectrum, but ENDA is one case where extending protection to a few really would translate into protection for all.

Minneapolis author Jacqueline White is writing a memoir, “My Transgender Husband: A Love Story.” She can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.