Clare Morell

Presumably, Clare Morell has a religious objection to the
Equality Act.

via LinkedIn

The passage of the Equality Act in the House has brought out the crazies. One of those crazy people is Clare Morell who provides (via the Heritage Foundation): Biden’s ‘Transgender’ Order Imperils Victims of Abuse.

Seriously? Given that the word transgender is in quotes my guess is that Ms. Morell is a conservative Catholic person. Perhaps she is more concerned with a defense of Church teachings than protecting people from trans folks.

The “logic” seems to be (after considerable irrelevant blather):

One … important yet little-known regulation to keep an eye on is the equal access rule at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[ … ] (irrelevant verbose bloat)

In 2018, nine homeless women filed a lawsuit in Fresno, California against Naomi’s House, a homeless shelter that received HUD funding. In the case, McGee v. Poverello, the women alleged that the shelter enabled sexual harassment because a biological male who self-identified as a female entered the shelter and showered with females.

The lawsuit alleges that the individual in question would “repeatedly make lewd and sexually inappropriate comments” to some of the women and “stare and leer at [them] while naked and make sexually harassing comments about their bodies.”

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit were represented by a personal injury lawyer who, presumably, worked on a contingency fee basis. While still at the US Eastern District of California the case has been in limbo since June, 2020 due to the pandemic and the critical shortage of US judges in California.

The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the main thrust of the suit was dismissed. Frankly that was due primarily to bad lawyering. Therefore, let’s assume, for the moment, that the allegations are true.

  1. President Biden’s executive order is irrelevant. California has comprehensive nondiscrimination laws. Indeed all of the allegations occurred during the Trump presidency.
  2. According to the Ninth Circuit the women did not claim or demonstrate specific injuries.
  3. If we take this at face value, it sounds like a transgender woman “DN” behaved very badly.
  4. DN’s behavior was atypical. Most transgender people draw as little attention as possible to themselves.
  5. If the allegations are all true then the operators of this 24 bed shelter were negligent. Not legally negligent but negligent with respect to their supervision of residents.

Getting back to Ms. Morell:

Anecdotal evidence also shows that some women fear that non-transgender, biological men may exploit the process of self-identification under the rule to gain access to women’s shelters. Perpetrators perpetrate. That is who they are.

That doesn’t seem to have ever happened which is why the evidence is “anecdotal” and the assertion relates to the fear rather than any incident. This is a rehash of bathroom arguments. There doesn’t seem to exist any incident anywhere characterized by someone pretending to be transgender.

We must not lie to ourselves that abusers won’t take advantage of policies such as these to commit further abuse.

The absence of paranoia, supposition and pretext is not a lie. This argument has been posited for several years now and it has never happened.

Even if it did happen (it hasn’t) shelter residents have more to fear from other cisgender women than an unlikely (due to the limited number) transgender woman. These residents are street creatures. Many are mentally unstable which is why they are homeless in the first place. Many are criminals who live day-to-day by stealing from others.

And the requisite:

The rule also harmed many faith-based shelter providers, such as the Alaska Hope Center. Essentially, faith-based organizations were being coerced to abandon their beliefs in order to participate in government-funded programs, or forgo federal funding.

Oh the poor dears. More importantly, this has nothing to do with the supposed peril that cisgender women face because of the presence of transgender women.

The harmful consequences of HUD’s equal access rule should serve as a dire warning to the Senate not to allow passage of the Equality Act.

The above assumes that there is a widespread problem due to transgender woman posing a peril to cisgender women. There is no evidence to support that contention. One misbehaving trans woman in California is evidence of one misbehaving transgender woman.

Clare Morell’s obvious problem is the Equality Act in contrast to any danger posed by transgender people. Objections to the Equality Act have been universally voiced by those who disapprove of LGBTQ people for religious reasons.

What these people fail to realize is that they are giving testimony to the importance of the Equality Act. These religious fanatics feel that they require the ability to discriminate in order to display their disapproval.

So far almost all of the opposition to the Equality Act has been framed around transgender people; 0.5% of the population. I suppose that homophobia is no longer socially acceptable so they are taking a safer route.

Related content: