Three middle school boys charged with sexual harassment for not using “preferred” gender pronouns of classmate

Three middle school boys charged with sexual harassment for not using “preferred” gender pronouns of classmate - The Lion

Three students at a Wisconsin middle school are being charged with sexual harassment for not using another student’s “preferred” gender pronouns. And the legal organization representing the accused suggests one school official may have been on “a fishing expedition to find evidence of sexual...

readlion.com

Three students at a Wisconsin middle school are being charged with sexual harassment for not using another student’s “preferred” gender pronouns.
And the legal organization representing the accused suggests one school official may have been on “a fishing expedition to find evidence of sexual harassment” during interviews that failed to follow the school’s own policies.

In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment.
According to the district, the boys failed to use a classmate’s requested pronouns of “they” and “them.” The school claims the conduct is sexual harassment under Title IX, which prohibits gender-based harassment in the form of name-calling.

Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told local media the use of pronouns was “confusing” to her son. She added that the classmate only recently announced the preferred pronouns, suggesting that other students were still adjusting.

“Sexual harassment – that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rabidoux said. “What did my son do? He’s a little boy. He told me that he was being charged with sexual harassment for not using the right pronouns.”

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.
In a May 12 letter sent to the superintendent, the school counselor and the Title IX compliance officer, WILL accuses the district of misinterpreting Title IX, which makes no mention of “gender identity.” They also say none of the alleged behavior “comes remotely close to sexual harassment.”

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.
The letter also argues that the district violated Title IX investigation procedures and the school’s own policies. Based on the evidence provided, WILL says the district should “promptly end the investigation, dismiss the complaints and remove them from each of the boys’ records.”

In response to parents’ complaints, superintendent Brad Ebert released a statement that fails to address the specifics of the case. Instead, the letter notes that the Kiel Area School District “prohibits all forms of bullying and harassment in accordance with all laws, including Title IX, and will continue to support ALL students regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, sex (including transgender status, change of sex or gender identity), or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability (“Protected Classes”) in any of its student programs and activities; this is consistent with school board policy. We do not comment on any student matters.”
WILL has asked the district to provide key documents in the case by Friday. If the district fails to respond, the parents are expected to take legal action.

 

[Metaphor]

The school called the 'mispronouned' person 'she' whilst investigating three boys for calling her 'she'.

You decided to ignore this by waffling on and on about how the complainant might not be the pronoun demander.

I am pointing the many conflation of your fantasies with fact.

BTW, there is no need reproduce content that you do not reply to.

Thanks for stopping your driveling derail about moral obligations.

I missed the other replies earlier. I've responded to them now.

Moral obligations are not a derail. I navigate my life based on what I consider moral. You should try it.

 

[Metaphor]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

You're not making any sense.

You falsely said the boys had already been investigated and the school had narrowed the 'perpetrator' to a single student. Neither thing happened.

As I previously said, I was wrong in the phrasing. I have known from the beginning that three students are involved.

Yes, I believe the boys were investigated and now the investigation is moving up to a Title Nine investigation. Investigations start at the bottom and move up as more information come to light through investigation.

How do you think it works?

Since none of the boys or their parents mention any outcome from some 'concluded' investigation, I think your presumption that some prior investigation has already occurred and concluded is contra the facts.

 

[Metaphor]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

Really. You keep making all sorts of assertions not based in reality.

Your pronouncement on the boys is in the thread for all to see.

Sure, luv.

Yep. Starting in post #4.

 

[laughing dog]

It does not make you a 'decent' person to simply indulge the language demands of pronoun demanders, especially at the cost of violating your own beliefs.

Actually, it probably does. But it does not surprise me in the least that you disagree.

I know what the pronoun demanders and their 'kind' enablers are doing, because I see it every day.

Stop being ridiculous. You did not see what happened at that school.

Evidently you have no way to respond to my scenario except with your unkind characterisation of it as 'babble'.

I see no reason to address your scenarios when you refuse to address mine.

Actually, "babble" is a much kinder description than what your smokescreen scenario merited.

 

[laughing dog]

Moral obligations are not a derail.

They are when the discussion is not about moral obligations.

I navigate my life based on what I consider moral. You should try it.

If your responses are any indication about how you navigate your life, no thank you.

 

[ZiprHead]

There you go again with your 'decent person' fantasy. It does not make you a 'decent' person to simply indulge the language demands of pronoun demanders, especially at the cost of violating your own beliefs.

What if your beliefs are immature and stupid?

 

[Toni]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

Really. You keep making all sorts of assertions not based in reality.

Your pronouncement on the boys is in the thread for all to see.

Sure, luv.

Yep. Starting in post #4.

You mean where I suggested a scenario?

Wow

 

[ZiprHead]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

You're not making any sense.

You falsely said the boys had already been investigated and the school had narrowed the 'perpetrator' to a single student. Neither thing happened.

As I previously said, I was wrong in the phrasing. I have known from the beginning that three students are involved.

Yes, I believe the boys were investigated and now the investigation is moving up to a Title Nine investigation. Investigations start at the bottom and move up as more information come to light through investigation.

How do you think it works?

Since none of the boys or their parents mention any outcome from some 'concluded' investigation, I think your presumption that some prior investigation has already occurred and concluded is contra the facts.

I didn't say concluded once. That's your weasel word.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything to not look bad...

What do you mean? Nothing in this thread tells me how schools are responding to trans bullying vs other bullying. That Title IX exists doesn't tell me about its use in practice in relation to my question. That it can theoretically be used doesn't mean it is being used in a way that means bullying of trans kids is being addressed better than bullying of other kids. You don't have the evidence.

The thing is Title IX actually has some accountability, unlike normal bullying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything to not look bad...

What do you mean? Nothing in this thread tells me how schools are responding to trans bullying vs other bullying. That Title IX exists doesn't tell me about its use in practice in relation to my question. That it can theoretically be used doesn't mean it is being used in a way that means bullying of trans kids is being addressed better than bullying of other kids. You don't have the evidence.

Well, this is the first/only case I’ve read about for this type of bullying. So evidence? I’d love to see data but I suspect it doesn’t exist or is not accessible.

Anecdotally: most of us posting can attest to just how loathe school administration is to actually address bullying. Unless it results in actual violence, they ignore it. Or worse: they use it as a pretext to further bully victims of bullying. One of my kids was a preferred target—the school refused to do anything, or to even acknowledge that it happened: except that they did call in my kid and a few others who were long known to be victims of bullying—after Columbine because they were afraid these kids might retaliate! For the incidents they denied happened. Yeah. It was not great.

Title IX outlines types of discrimination based on sex or gender and specifies that these are not to be tolerated if the school wants to continue to receive certain funding. Hint: schools want to receive any and all funding.

So there are concrete consequences if schools choose to ignore certain kinds of bullying, specifically loss of funding.

And selective consequences lead to selective enforcement in too many situations.

I honestly think Title IX might apply in all cases though of gender-normative bullying.

I just don't think it's been used that way yet.

I think what's going on is someone realized the stick they have to get the school to actually act.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anything to not look bad...

What do you mean? Nothing in this thread tells me how schools are responding to trans bullying vs other bullying. That Title IX exists doesn't tell me about its use in practice in relation to my question. That it can theoretically be used doesn't mean it is being used in a way that means bullying of trans kids is being addressed better than bullying of other kids. You don't have the evidence.

Well, this is the first/only case I’ve read about for this type of bullying. So evidence? I’d love to see data but I suspect it doesn’t exist or is not accessible.

Anecdotally: most of us posting can attest to just how loathe school administration is to actually address bullying. Unless it results in actual violence, they ignore it. Or worse: they use it as a pretext to further bully victims of bullying. One of my kids was a preferred target—the school refused to do anything, or to even acknowledge that it happened: except that they did call in my kid and a few others who were long known to be victims of bullying—after Columbine because they were afraid these kids might retaliate! For the incidents they denied happened. Yeah. It was not great.

Title IX outlines types of discrimination based on sex or gender and specifies that these are not to be tolerated if the school wants to continue to receive certain funding. Hint: schools want to receive any and all funding.

So there are concrete consequences if schools choose to ignore certain kinds of bullying, specifically loss of funding.

And selective consequences lead to selective enforcement in too many situations.

I honestly think Title IX might apply in all cases though of gender-normative bullying.

I just don't think it's been used that way yet.

I think what's going on is someone realized the stick they have to get the school to actually act.

Yeah, which means that there is a storm coming against Title IX coming from those who wish to not have the "toy" taken away.

This is like a crack of lightning on the horizon as a dark cloud advances low in the sky.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And selective consequences lead to selective enforcement in too many situations.

I honestly think Title IX might apply in all cases though of gender-normative bullying.

I just don't think it's been used that way yet.

I think what's going on is someone realized the stick they have to get the school to actually act.

Yeah, which means that there is a storm coming against Title IX coming from those who wish to not have the "toy" taken away.

This is like a crack of lightning on the horizon as a dark cloud advances low in the sky.

I'm afraid you're right.

 

[Metaphor]

It does not make you a 'decent' person to simply indulge the language demands of pronoun demanders, especially at the cost of violating your own beliefs.

Actually, it probably does. But it does not surprise me in the least that you disagree.

Your 'decency' appears to be quite selective. It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns, but my distress, I am certain, would get short shrift from the pronoun demanders.

I know what the pronoun demanders and their 'kind' enablers are doing, because I see it every day.

Stop being ridiculous. You did not see what happened at that school.

No, I didn't hear or see it. Yet I do not see you upbraiding Toni or Jarhyn or Ziprhead for their pronouncements on what they believe happened.

Evidently you have no way to respond to my scenario except with your unkind characterisation of it as 'babble'.

I see no reason to address your scenarios when you refuse to address mine.

Actually, "babble" is a much kinder description than what your smokescreen scenario merited.

My scenario merely illustrated that 'kindness' is not some virtue that trumps other considerations.

 

[Metaphor]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

You're not making any sense.

You falsely said the boys had already been investigated and the school had narrowed the 'perpetrator' to a single student. Neither thing happened.

As I previously said, I was wrong in the phrasing. I have known from the beginning that three students are involved.

Yes, I believe the boys were investigated and now the investigation is moving up to a Title Nine investigation. Investigations start at the bottom and move up as more information come to light through investigation.

How do you think it works?

Since none of the boys or their parents mention any outcome from some 'concluded' investigation, I think your presumption that some prior investigation has already occurred and concluded is contra the facts.

I didn't say concluded once. That's your weasel word.

No, you used the past tense, implying it was concluded.

 

[Metaphor]

As far as investigation goes, the school has determined which of the three students participated in the harassment. The article itself states "In March, officials at Kiel Middle School first notified the parents of three eighth-grade boys that their sons were being investigated for sexual harassment. I assume the boys have previously been counseled about their activities yet continued that harassment, prompting the letters to the parents.

So, Metaphor, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You are incorrect. Three boys are accused, not one.

Attorneys from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are representing the Rabidoux family and the families of the other two students who were accused.

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

“The complaint against these boys, and the district’s ongoing investigation, are wholly inappropriate and should be immediately dismissed,” the letter reads.

So, ZiprHead, you are just plain wrong. But I suspect you will just double down on your wrongness.

You didn't say anything about the investigation being concluded. You said:

Your violent twisting of allegations not even investigated yet ("bully and intimidate") and your authoritarian desire to impose the strictures of your religion on others is truly indecent and despicable and the acts of an authoritarian bully.

"Violent twisting"??? Has someone here given you a purple nurple?

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing. That hasn't stopped you and Toni and Jarhyn finding the boys guilty.

Really. You keep making all sorts of assertions not based in reality.

Your pronouncement on the boys is in the thread for all to see.

Sure, luv.

Yep. Starting in post #4.

You mean where I suggested a scenario?

Wow

Where you suggested what you thought happened.

By later posts, you had decided the boys were "tormenting" the pronoun demander.

 

[Jarhyn]

It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns

I know right, the world would just be so much better if we could all just call you "it" wouldn't it?

*No, it would not, this is a hyperbole to show how ridiculous this demand is, that you say only what pleases you all the time.

 

[laughing dog]

It does not make you a 'decent' person to simply indulge the language demands of pronoun demanders, especially at the cost of violating your own beliefs.

Actually, it probably does. But it does not surprise me in the least that you disagree.

Your 'decency' appears to be quite selective.

No more than your "moral beliefs".

It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns, but my distress, I am certain, would get short shrift from the pronoun demanders.

Probably and so what? Your refusal to support human decency causes distress to others, but their distress gets short shrift from you.

I know what the pronoun demanders and their 'kind' enablers are doing, because I see it every day.

Stop being ridiculous. You did not see what happened at that school.

No, I didn't hear or see it.

So stop posting as if you did.

Yet I do not see you upbraiding Toni or Jarhyn or Ziprhead for their pronouncements on what they believe happened.

On noes, a "whataboutism"!!!! The difference I see between their positions and yours is that you are demanding how people should behave while they writing about what they believe might have (or did) happen.

Evidently you have no way to respond to my scenario except with your unkind characterisation of it as 'babble'.

I see no reason to address your scenarios when you refuse to address mine.

Actually, "babble" is a much kinder description than what your smokescreen scenario merited.

My scenario merely illustrated that 'kindness' is not some virtue that trumps other considerations.

It did nothing of the sort. You injected the irrelevant standard of "moral obligations" and "moral beliefs". For some obscure reason, you feel that moral beliefs necesarily trump other considerations.

 

[Metaphor]

It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns

I know right, the world would just be so much better if we could all just call you "it" wouldn't it?

The world would be better if gender authoritarians had not captured institutions and the government to proscribe and prescribe speech.

Your obvious desire to dehumanise me by calling me "it" is noted, but you will have to abide by the message board rules.

 

[Metaphor]

It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns, but my distress, I am certain, would get short shrift from the pronoun demanders.

Probably and so what? Your refusal to support human decency causes distress to others, but their distress gets short shrift from you.

I disagree with your claims of 'decency' and find your rules to be quite indecent.

I know what the pronoun demanders and their 'kind' enablers are doing, because I see it every day.

Stop being ridiculous. You did not see what happened at that school.

No, I didn't hear or see it.

So stop posting as if you did.

I'm not. I'm posting on what has been revealed by parties involved.

Yet I do not see you upbraiding Toni or Jarhyn or Ziprhead for their pronouncements on what they believe happened.

On noes, a "whataboutism"!!!! The difference I see between their positions and yours is that you are demanding how people should behave while they writing about what they believe might have (or did) happen.

Of course, you have it exactly backwards. I haven't demanded behaviour from anybody. That's what pronoun demanders do.

It did nothing of the sort. You injected the irrelevant standard of "moral obligations" and "moral beliefs". For some obscure reason, you feel that moral beliefs necesarily trump other considerations.

They certainly trump perceived 'kindness' when that 'kindness' is oblivious and detrimental to the feelings and rights of your non-preferred groups.

 

[laughing dog]

It upsets me to be told that I must use demanded pronouns, but my distress, I am certain, would get short shrift from the pronoun demanders.

Probably and so what? Your refusal to support human decency causes distress to others, but their distress gets short shrift from you.

I disagree with your claims of 'decency' and find your rules to be quite indecent.

That is neither surprising nor interesting to me.

But at least you did not deny your double standard of it is okay for you to short shrift distress of others but the reverse is not okay.

I know what the pronoun demanders and their 'kind' enablers are doing, because I see it every day.

Stop being ridiculous. You did not see what happened at that school.

No, I didn't hear or see it.

So stop posting as if you did.

I'm not. I'm posting on what has been revealed by parties involved.

That is an outright falsehood. In the middle school drama no one
1) has revealed someone "demanded" to have a certain pronoun used, and
2) is being investigated solely for "mispronouning".
And there is no direct evidence that "gender ideologists" or "gender ideology" is driving the school's policy or interpretation of title IX.

Yet I do not see you upbraiding Toni or Jarhyn or Ziprhead for their pronouncements on what they believe happened.

On noes, a "whataboutism"!!!! The difference I see between their positions and yours is that you are demanding how people should behave while they writing about what they believe might have (or did) happen.

Of course, you have it exactly backwards. I haven't demanded behaviour from anybody.

Another blatant falsehood.

It did nothing of the sort. You injected the irrelevant standard of "moral obligations" and "moral beliefs". For some obscure reason, you feel that moral beliefs necesarily trump other considerations.

They certainly trump perceived 'kindness' when that 'kindness' is oblivious and detrimental to the feelings and rights of your non-preferred groups.

Where do you pull these hypocritical straw men from?