Currently, there is a drive to bring ENDA to a vote by LGBTIQ rights activists. Now, back in March, I was able to attend an ENDA lobby day in DC, and I heard a lot of stories about the importance of this piece of legislation. However, as much as I consider this legislation a step forward, my conscience tells me that even if it passes, there will still be many issues and much inequality depending on jurisdiction.

1 - IT ONLY APPLIES TO BUSINESSES OF 15+ EMPLOYEES

Now, it is true that all categories covered by the ADA and CRA have the 15 employee cutoff (with some states setting a lower cutoff in their anti-discrimination laws, in my home state of New Jersey, it is one). However, I believe that all categories described by ENDA, the ADA, and the CRA should be protected if there is even one employee.

There is also a potentially ableist element here, as people of certain abilities cannot stand working in a larger workplace. All people should be protected in all work.

2 - IT IS JUST EMPLOYMENT, NOTHING ELSE!

What about housing? What about public accomodations? What about education (both public and non-secular private)? What about credit? What about government benefits? Some people, like myself, cannot work due to disability, and those with disabilities are the most vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, and exclusion in the job market; and bigger companies, by design, cannot nurture disabled employees into being the most productive they can be! Not to mention that one needs housing to find jobs and many LGBTIQ people are homeless and in poverty, due to massive discrimination. It is truly a vicious cycle that will unfortunately not be addressed by ENDA!!

3 - IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GENDER IDENTITY

Protecting against sexual orientation is pretty straightforward, its pretty much "don't fire a person because they are gay or bi, etc." and ideally "don't deny benefits to partners" (though ENDA doesn't address it). However, I got the feeling from the lobby day that ENDA will not specifically address the special considerations that are needed for the gender variant population, such as:

1) Specifying that gender identity applies to all gender variants, regardless of hormonal or operational status
2) Specifying that workplace dress codes may exist BUT THE PERSON MAY DRESS AND GROOM CONSISTENT WITH THEIR GENDER IDENTITY regardless of the conditions in 1
3) Specifying that in the absence of gender neutral restrooms, a person may use the restrooms of their gender identity, regardless of the conditions in 1
4) That number 2 also applies to all situations with housing, public accomodations, education, credit, and government benefits.

4 - IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIAL HEALTHCARE NEEDS OF GENDER VARIANT PEOPLE

I believe that any workplace's health insurance should cover transition related services. Of course, what would even be better, is a single payer system that covers trans health issues.

In conclusion, I do not want to stop ENDA, but remember as you are lobbying for it that while it is a step forward, there is an element of privilege in the legislation and that it just won't go to the true heart of the issue of discrimination.

For an even better alternative, consider the American Equality Bill.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis