The proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect employees from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and would be a safety net for vulnerable people.

Contrary to J. Matt Barber’s Oct. 1 Comentary screed, “It’s the ENDA First Amendment,” recognizing a transgendered person’s identity is not like pretending “that an apple is an orange,” and explaining such an identity to children need not be difficult. Put simply, some people born female turn out to be happier living as men, and vice versa. Most look frighteningly ordinary, and we’ve all probably brushed elbows at WaterFire and been none the wiser.

Gender transition is often a lonely and unenviable struggle. People who feel compelled to do it deserve sincere attempts at understanding their individual situations, not stereotyping and public ridicule. A person’s sexual characteristics are none of an employer’s business, as long as that person can do the job. That is why, six years ago, Rhode Island became one of the first states to adopt a non-discrimination policy that protects “gender identity and expression” in employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations. The sky has not fallen. No religious person has been “forced to adopt a view of human sexuality” and Rhode Island has certainly not “legalize[d] sexual harassment,” both of which Barber threatens will happen if ENDA passes on the national level.

Furthermore, Barber’s prediction of parochial-school teachers in miniskirts is unrealistic, because ENDA explicitly permits employers to demand “reasonable dress or grooming standards.”

It is time to catch the nation up with Rhode Island and a dozen other states that explicitly protect gender identity in the workplace.

TUCKER LIEBERMAN

North Providence