But this illustrates exactly what I was talking about with leavng Gender Identity out of ENDA:

NYC Woman Accuses Bar Of Ejecting Her For Being Too Masculine
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/070207cab.htm

True the article does not concern an employment issue, but I realized that I having a hard time articulating what I was saying.

The woman was minding her own business, when an employee barged into the ladies room and demanded she leave. He refused to look at her identification, and the fact that she should even have to present that is insulting.

Timothy, We all know there are many shades between a feminine man and a full fledged drag queen. Just as there are a lot of shades between a masculine woman and a Drag King. There’s also a lot of room between different people’s idea of what is masculine and what is feminine. Leaving out gender identity means that a gay man who is less masculine than his colleagues can be fired for that. The employer can dodge the gay issue by making it about the man’s femininity. It doesn’t have to be a large, obnoxious display, either, it can be something quite small and innocuous.
And where is the line, can an employer decide there are too many flat-chested women in the office and demand that they all get breast implants if they want to remain employed? I understand dress codes and hygiene requirements, but should our employers get to decide the physical composition of our bodies, even if it’s irrelevant to the work we do?

You are not alone in that opinion – it’s quite libertarian. I simply question whether you believe the same right to fire you for any reason also includes religion, sex, race, color, and creed.

In other words, is it OK with you that the new manager of the local branch office fires all the Latinos or all the Jews?

Supporters of anti-discriminationl laws assert that you have a “right” to use force against an employer to maintain your job. I disagree. A job is a voluntary contract between two parties, not something you can somehow own. Your boss should have the right to fire you for any reason, unless your employment agreement stipulates otherwise, just like you should have the right to quit for any reason. It’s called freedom of association.

And why this exemption for churches? There is no “homicide” exemption for the Catholic church. If discrimination is really a crime, there should not be a religious exemption.

Consider this from the Bilerico article posted by Faris in the first comment on this thread(bold added by me) :
“What attorneys saw on the front lines of handling discrimination cases, was that when the situation involved a gay man being harassed by co-workers for being a ‘fairy’ or a lesbian being told they need to start painting their nails and curling their hair to get their promotion, the words ‘sexual orientation’ in the law actually didn’t help.

Unless the offending harassers, bosses or policies said something specific about sexual acts with someone of the same gender, the ‘sexual orientation’ provision in the law wouldn’t apply. At least half of the egregious cases of discrimination were impossible to address with those legal terms. “

I fail to see how it’s okay to call someone a fairy in the workplace, or that getting a promotion has anything to do with a curling iron and manicures.

I guess what I’m saying is that for example, a man with a naturally high voice and a more feminine set of gestures, postures, etc should not be expected to “butch it up” just to keep his job. That has nothing to do with getting the job done, or done in a professional manner.

I’m not talking about someone wanting to show up at work looking like a drag queen, that’s a very extreme example of my underlying issue with leaving “gender identity” out of ENDA.

Please point to me the part of the bill that would address protections against appearing “too flamey” but doesn’t protect gender identity, I’m curious to know how that happened.

OK, this is going to get some people going, but…

I do think that a privately held company can have an expectation that certain behaviors are adhered to by their employees on company time. I think companies are entitled to present an image and that this image can include such things as clothing, hair styles, and grooming.

Yep, I actually believe that.

So I don’t have a problem with a business, such as Disneyland for example, telling male employees that their hair cannot be on their ears (which, incidentally, they do). I have no problem with a business expecting gender-compliant appearances. I know that as a gay man I’m supposed to be horrified at such requirements, but too bad folks, I’m not.

Because I recognize the difference between transgendered people and a drag queen. While I love both, I know that a transgendered person is seeking to appear consistent with their internal gender. And I’ve yet to see a transgendered person that wants to look like a drag-queen at work. Transgendered people DO dress gender-compliant and, at least the ones I’ve known, prefer to dress appropriately for their line of work. I don’t want to stereotype, but the transgendered people I’ve known were a fairly conservatively dressed bunch of folks.

This bill as written WOULD protect someone for “appearing too flamey” (“flamey” being gay, I suppose) but you are right that they could not show up to work looking like Chris Cocker. I’m OK with that.

I happen to believe that gay people, even effeminate gay men and butch gay women, are quite capable of presenting an appearance that is business appropriate. I’ve known plenty that do. And I don’t think the desire to dress or appear otherwise by some trumps the standards of a company.

I can respect supporting the protections of transgendered people. I wish that such protections were a political reality. But let’s not pretend that this is somehow the same as protecting flamboyance in the workplace. Because this is an argument that is condescending to both gay people and to transgendered people.

I see several people dodging this issue.

The wording is “gender identity” which, while including transexuals, is not limited to them. Part of what makes transsexuals a part of our community is the shared variance on gender identity.

Many gays do not conform to gender stereotypes. We know this, but I think many here are completely disregarding this very important fact.

The best way to explain this is to look at court cases. People have been able to skirt the gay issue by basically saying, “Oh I didn’t fire her because she’s a lesbian, I fired her because she wouldn’t wear makeup or grow her hair and fingernails out. I fired her for being too masculine.”

You guys seem to be under the impression that “sexual orientation” will mean no hardworking, law-abiding, company- supporting homosexual will be fired without recourse.

ENDA without gender indentity protections means that they can’t fire you for BEING gay, but they CAN fire you for ACTING gay.

So let’s be honest here. Leaving “gender identity” out of ENDA leaves these people out:

-Transgenders.
-People who are sexually ambiguous.
-Butch Lesbians.
-Feminine Gay Men.
-Anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes in dress, mannerism, demeanor, vocally, or physically.

I seem to meet very few gay men and lesbians who conform exactly to expected gender stereotypes. It’s in fact, often the reason my gaydar goes off.

It’s going to be rather difficult to prove an employer fired someone for what they do outside the office, as opposed to being “too flamey” in the office.

So let’s be honest, leaving “gender identity” out enda leaves out transexuals, at least half the gay community, and probably a number of straight people as well.