I have a few issues with this, the first being about the polling itself. Any long-time readers of Bilerico know that when it comes to polling LGBT people, developing an accurate picture of us at any given time is pretty hard, and often these people aren't willing to put the work in necessary to do so.
The Advocate article doesn't say anything about methodology, only that the 500 people came from across the country. But were they representative? And how did they find these people? Donors to the HRC, Advocate subscribers, people with registered same-sex relationships and "across the country" means California, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts? What methodology did they use to control outside variables that would come with any list of queers?
But, if true (which is entirely possible to me), this really just highlights the main reason that the ENDA should only move forward inclusively: no one's going to come back for the T-folk. They're a much smaller group, numerically, than the GLB and have even less money to be spending on lobbying. And if 70% of queers don't see how much harder it'll be to come back for the transgender people later, or the ramifications of, on the second major piece of specifically queer legislation at the federal level, splitting up the LGBTQ activist community, I don't think that they're going to put pressure on their advocacy groups over the next several years to lobby for an ENDA specifically about gender identity.
Other than that, I've never been a fan of basing what's right and what's effective on a poll. I hope that wasn't the reason it was conducted.