• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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


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.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,083
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
If it is a case of intentional bullying that is one thing.

If not it is the progressive cultural conformity police. It will work its way into the business world.

To me it is like enforced Chinese social conformity.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It does appear that there is a bit more to the charges than in the article that Metaphor linked:
At most, the statement describes a few isolated incidents of teasing and arguments between the 8th-grade students in question,” said the letter, dated Thursday. “But none of this warrants accusations of sexual harassment and the serious reputational harm that comes with it.”

From this quote above, I will go out on a limb and suggest that the kids being charged engaged in some pretty focused harassment of a student they don’t like or whose differences made them uncomfortable. I don’t know the town or the kids involved but I did raise 4 kids. School administration is typically loathe to address incidents of harassment of any kind, whether it involves sexual harassment, racism or just plain harassment and bullying. By students, parents or teachers.

The mother quoted refers to her 8th grade son, who would be 13 or 14, as a little boy. He’s not a little boy, even if he has yet to enter puberty. He’s old enough to know that he might be hurting someone’s feelings by words he chooses, including words which in other circumstances are perfectly innocuous. The article I linked seems to indicate an intent to harass, embarrass or shame the student who prefers they and them as pronouns, rather than a simple slip up or several.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
 
Last edited:

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
11,083
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Kids calling ohers fatty, queer or faggot, ugly, four eyes and so on.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
In the US, it is extremely unlikely that any allegations will follow these boys past high school and not very likely that they will follow these boys as far as high school. ‘Permanent record’ generally does not start until high school. Frankly, no one cares about what you did in high school the day after you graduate from high school, with the exception of admissions offices for post secondary schools. After you are admitted, they don’t look at your high school record ever again. Only serious misconduct such as academic dishonesty or serious violence resulting in criminal charges might possibly ( but not certainly) would hinder admissions to most post secondary schools or programs. To be honest, no one cares how good ( or bad) a student/athlete/musician you were in high school starting the day after you graduate.

This may be different in Australia or other parts of the world.

Secondly, no one is charged with a crime. I do agree that it might be in the boys’ best interests if they retained the services of attorneys to represent them at meetings with the school. School administrators are not always correct and sometimes they will attempt to railroad kids out of expediency rather than justice.

To the point about the mother’s understanding of sexual harassment: It is clear from her quote that she does NOT understand what acts and behaviors are considered sexual harassment. perhaps an attorney will help her understand. Regardless, the mother isn’t being accused of anything. Her son is. The mother seems to be doing what most parents do: reflexively claim innocence on the part of her child.

We are not given details about what kinds of behaviors are alleged to have taken place. I would guess it’s much worse than accidentally slipping up and calling their classmate he or she instead of they.

It’s not surprising. Adolescents are often quite uncomfortable with differences, with sex or sexuality, much less gender and gender identity. Some kids will express this discomfort by bullying or harassing whoever makes them uncomfortable or to deflect unwanted attention ruin from themselves.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
In the US, it is extremely unlikely that any allegations will follow these boys past high school and not very likely that they will follow these boys as far as high school. ‘Permanent record’ generally does not start until high school. Frankly, no one cares about what you did in high school the day after you graduate from high school, with the exception of admissions offices for post secondary schools.
Universities have withdrawn offers from students before, based on something the university finds out the student did in their teens.

After you are admitted, they don’t look at your high school record ever again. Only serious misconduct such as academic dishonesty or serious violence resulting in criminal charges might possibly ( but not certainly) would hinder admissions to most post secondary schools or programs. To be honest, no one cares how good ( or bad) a student/athlete/musician you were in high school starting the day after you graduate.

This may be different in Australia or other parts of the world.

Secondly, no one is charged with a crime. I do agree that it might be in the boys’ best interests if they retained the services of attorneys to represent them at meetings with the school. School administrators are not always correct and sometimes they will attempt to railroad kids out of expediency rather than justice.

To the point about the mother’s understanding of sexual harassment: It is clear from her quote that she does NOT understand what acts and behaviors are considered sexual harassment. perhaps an attorney will help her understand.
She was describing her reaction to reading the accusation. 'Sexual harassment' contains a wide range of behaviours.

Regardless, the mother isn’t being accused of anything. Her son is. The mother seems to be doing what most parents do: reflexively claim innocence on the part of her child.
Most would, but she has also heard specifics. According to her son, he defended a friend who had called the complainant 'she' by saying something like 'you can't make him use they and them, that's what the first amendment is about' (paraphrased - there are videos on the WILL page with the exact wording).

We are not given details about what kinds of behaviors are alleged to have taken place. I would guess it’s much worse than accidentally slipping up and calling their classmate he or she instead of they.
"Accidentally slipping up" and "deliberately misgendering for harassment purposes" are not the entirety of the sample space.

It’s not surprising. Adolescents are often quite uncomfortable with differences, with sex or sexuality, much less gender and gender identity. Some kids will express this discomfort by bullying or harassing whoever makes them uncomfortable or to deflect unwanted attention ruin from themselves.
Evidently you've made up your mind on that, though I see a difference between rejecting gender ideology and 'bullying or harassing'.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
In the US, it is extremely unlikely that any allegations will follow these boys past high school and not very likely that they will follow these boys as far as high school. ‘Permanent record’ generally does not start until high school. Frankly, no one cares about what you did in high school the day after you graduate from high school, with the exception of admissions offices for post secondary schools.
Universities have withdrawn offers from students before, based on something the university finds out the student did in their teens.

After you are admitted, they don’t look at your high school record ever again. Only serious misconduct such as academic dishonesty or serious violence resulting in criminal charges might possibly ( but not certainly) would hinder admissions to most post secondary schools or programs. To be honest, no one cares how good ( or bad) a student/athlete/musician you were in high school starting the day after you graduate.

This may be different in Australia or other parts of the world.

Secondly, no one is charged with a crime. I do agree that it might be in the boys’ best interests if they retained the services of attorneys to represent them at meetings with the school. School administrators are not always correct and sometimes they will attempt to railroad kids out of expediency rather than justice.

To the point about the mother’s understanding of sexual harassment: It is clear from her quote that she does NOT understand what acts and behaviors are considered sexual harassment. perhaps an attorney will help her understand.
She was describing her reaction to reading the accusation. 'Sexual harassment' contains a wide range of behaviours.

Regardless, the mother isn’t being accused of anything. Her son is. The mother seems to be doing what most parents do: reflexively claim innocence on the part of her child.
Most would, but she has also heard specifics. According to her son, he defended a friend who had called the complainant 'she' by saying something like 'you can't make him use they and them, that's what the first amendment is about' (paraphrased - there are videos on the WILL page with the exact wording).

We are not given details about what kinds of behaviors are alleged to have taken place. I would guess it’s much worse than accidentally slipping up and calling their classmate he or she instead of they.
"Accidentally slipping up" and "deliberately misgendering for harassment purposes" are not the entirety of the sample space.

It’s not surprising. Adolescents are often quite uncomfortable with differences, with sex or sexuality, much less gender and gender identity. Some kids will express this discomfort by bullying or harassing whoever makes them uncomfortable or to deflect unwanted attention ruin from themselves.
Evidently you've made up your mind on that, though I see a difference between rejecting gender ideology and 'bullying or harassing'.
Colleges only look at middle school (in the US, this includes 8th grade) grade transcripts if courses were taken for high school credit. They do not look at attendance records, misbehavior that does not rise to criminal (and even then, it would be difficult to look at such records as they are normally sealed). It is exceedingly unlikely that any college would look at this case with respect to determining whether or not to offer any of the students involved admissions, or to withdraw such offers. If this alleged behavior is determined to be of a serious nature and is part of a pattern repeated in high school, that's a different matter. They would note suspensions, expulsions, etc. for behavior and if it is referred to in the student's record, they may get a hint that this is an issue that began in middle school.

I made no comment about what the mother did or did not hear. I commented only on her claim, which is incorrect.

Under Title IX, Sexual harassment is described as follows:
Title IX requires schools to take steps to prevent and remedy two forms of sex-based harassment: sexual harassment (including sexual violence) and gender-based harassment Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment. Sexual violence, as OCR uses the term, refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent. A number of different acts fall into the category of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse, and sexual coercion.

Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.

Sex-based harassment can be carried out by school employees, other students, and third parties. All students can experience sex-based harassment, including male and female students, LGBT students, students with disabilities, and students of different races, national origins, and ages. Title IX protects all students from sex-based harassment, regardless of the sex of the parties, including when they are members of the same sex.

Sex-based harassment creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it denies or limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program. When a school knows or reasonably should know of possible sex-based harassment, it must take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred. If an investigation reveals that the harassment created a hostile environment, the school must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate the hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects.

I bolded the portion that seems applicable in this case.
As I noted in my first post, certain conduct might affect potential admissions to some colleges:
Only serious misconduct such as academic dishonesty or serious violence resulting in criminal charges might possibly ( but not certainly) would hinder admissions to most post secondary schools or programs.

Depending on exactly what was said or done, if such conduct continues to occur into high school, it could possibly affect college admissions. Despite the fact that the boys in question are in 8th grade, they are only in 8th grade, middle school, not high school, despite them being teenagers (in all likelihood). The mother is wrong: her son is not a little boy. But he's also not an adult, despite the horrific practice in some jurisdictions of holding such young adolescents and charging them as adults in serious crimes. For one thing, no one is being charged with a crime. There are no police involved.

As to specifics of what is and is not alleged to have happened, I don't have access to that info so I cannot comment.

Something that had not occurred to me earlier but something that might be considered: It is possible that the school is only bringing forward these charges to a)ward off a lawsuit by the accusing child/parents or b) is only bringing forward these charges in order to challenge the definitions used by Title IX, rather than in support of a transgender child.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.
"Permanent educational record? LOL. There is no such thing. At most, it would remain until he graduated from high school in the same district.

Calling in an attorney at this stage is an over-reaction or a publicity stunt.
Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.
So? No school can restrict a family from having an advisor or an attorney. This is not a criminal or civil offense. An attorney might be useful if the school found the children had broken some rule. Until then, it is over-kill.
Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.
I mean what I wrote. Sexual harassment includes offensive or abusive or sexual language. Furthermore, the boy says is being charged based on mispronouning but that is not the only action in the letter to the parents.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
The point is that the allegation involves more than "mispronouning".

Do I think schools can over-react? Yes. Do I think 14 year boys can be bullying assholes? Yes.

I suspect this 3 children were bullying some other child and "mispronouning" was part of their actions.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation and a more balanced report.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.
"Permanent educational record? LOL. There is no such thing.
Then I would blame American screenwriters for claiming there is such a thing. But of course, there is. It's a school's records of its students.

At most, it would remain until he graduated from high school in the same district.

Calling in an attorney at this stage is an over-reaction or a publicity stunt.
Perhaps for you, but I consider it neither.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.
So? No school can restrict a family from having an advisor or an attorney. This is not a criminal or civil offense. An attorney might be useful if the school found the children had broken some rule. Until then, it is over-kill.
In your opinion, it is overkill. Since the boys are the ones who have the most at stake, I think it is up to them to decide exactly how much advice they need.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.
I mean what I wrote. Sexual harassment includes offensive or abusive or sexual language. Furthermore, the boy says is being charged based on mispronouning but that is not the only action in the letter to the parents.
That is what is contained in the original charge (which I linked).

The 'other' behaviour is not described in any way, but it is only relevant if the 'mispronouning' behaviour would have been insufficient on its own to bring the charge. I suspect (since it's the only behaviour named in any way), that 'mispronouning' is the basis of the charge.

I strongly suspect there is more to this incident and story than the one-sided account from a parent.

Edited to add

If you go to the WILL website (the organization defending these boys), there is a link to the letter from the school (Letter to parents ) which includes the following statement
After being informed that a student's preferred pronouns were "they/them", (redacted names) engaged in conduct based on gender identity toward the student including incorrect pronouns and conduct that was harassing in nature".

So, it appears that it was more than just incorrect pronouns.
It depends on what actions they are alleging that are 'harassing in nature', though the original notification says the crime is 'mispronouning'.
The point is that the allegation involves more than "mispronouning".

Do I think schools can over-react? Yes. Do I think 14 year boys can be bullying assholes? Yes.

I suspect this 3 children were bullying some other child and "mispronouning" was part of their actions.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation and a more balanced report.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.
"Permanent educational record? LOL. There is no such thing.
Then I would blame American screenwriters for claiming there is such a thing.
"Permanent education record" was an empty threat that school personnel would make to students for years.
At most, it would remain until he graduated from high school in the same district.

Calling in an attorney at this stage is an over-reaction or a publicity stunt.
Perhaps for you, but I consider it neither.
Totally understandable given your ignorance about the US. But engaging the lawyers - who immediately went public - is a clear attempt to intimidate the school district personnel.
Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.
So? No school can restrict a family from having an advisor or an attorney. This is not a criminal or civil offense. An attorney might be useful if the school found the children had broken some rule. Until then, it is over-kill.
In your opinion, it is overkill. Since the boys are the ones who have the most at stake, I think it is up to them to decide exactly how much advice they need.
You think the boys made that decision?
Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.
I mean what I wrote. Sexual harassment includes offensive or abusive or sexual language. Furthermore, the boy says is being charged based on mispronouning but that is not the only action in the letter to the parents.
That is what is contained in the original charge (which I linked).

The 'other' behaviour is not described in any way, but it is only relevant if the 'mispronouning' behaviour would have been insufficient on its own to bring the charge. I suspect (since it's the only behaviour named in any way), that 'mispronouning' is the basis of the charge.
The "mispronouncing" is not described (there is no description on the form of the "mispronouncement"). The other behavior may be extremely relevant in its own right - your conjecture as to its relevancy reveals more about you than its urgency or relevancy.




 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
First, this is not a criminal complaint, it is an alleged violation of school or school district policy, so at this stage there is no reason for any attorney to be involved which makes me wonder about the motives of some of the parents.
On the contrary, I would say there is a very good reason to have an attorney. Having 'sexual harassment' on your permanent educational record seems a situation that very definitely warrants defending yourself.
"Permanent educational record? LOL. There is no such thing.
Then I would blame American screenwriters for claiming there is such a thing.
"Permanent education record" was an empty threat that school personnel would make to students for years.
At most, it would remain until he graduated from high school in the same district.

Calling in an attorney at this stage is an over-reaction or a publicity stunt.
Perhaps for you, but I consider it neither.
Totally understandable given your ignorance about the US. But engaging the lawyers - who immediately went public - is a clear attempt to intimidate the school district personnel.
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.

Additionally, the school's letters to the families state that the families 'may have an advisor of their choice ... an attorney'.
So? No school can restrict a family from having an advisor or an attorney. This is not a criminal or civil offense. An attorney might be useful if the school found the children had broken some rule. Until then, it is over-kill.
In your opinion, it is overkill. Since the boys are the ones who have the most at stake, I think it is up to them to decide exactly how much advice they need.
You think the boys made that decision?
No, I think the parents made the decision in the best interest of their boys.

Second, one of the mother's of these boys is quoted in the article linked by Toni as saying
“Sexual harassment, that’s rape, that’s incest, that’s inappropriate touching,” Rose Rabidoux, the mother of one of the boys, told WEAU 13 NEWS. “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.”
This mother does not know what sexual harassment is. And, the entire reaction is based on what her son says he is being charged with.
I'm not sure what you mean? The son is definitely being charged with sexual harassment.
I mean what I wrote. Sexual harassment includes offensive or abusive or sexual language. Furthermore, the boy says is being charged based on mispronouning but that is not the only action in the letter to the parents.
That is what is contained in the original charge (which I linked).

The 'other' behaviour is not described in any way, but it is only relevant if the 'mispronouning' behaviour would have been insufficient on its own to bring the charge. I suspect (since it's the only behaviour named in any way), that 'mispronouning' is the basis of the charge.
The "mispronouncing" is not described (there is no description on the form of the "mispronouncement"). The other behavior may be extremely relevant in its own right - your conjecture as to its relevancy reveals more about you than its urgency or relevancy.
Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.

 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
6,117
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I've asked this question of other...right leaning posters here...but I'll ask it again.

Is there a central source for these "liberal outrage of the week" stories? Do you get an email alert with the "woke" story of the moment? Is it a "share this example of how the radical left is destroying America" thing on the socials, or do you have to subscribe to the source so you get the story that makes you pig-biting mad enough to share?

As a frozen food heir says, I'm just asking questions...
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.
Your opinion is not based on any knowledge about the US. There would be no "stain" attached to these children. There is no criminal or civil complaint.

We (which includes you) have no clue what the possible repercussions on these children will be if they are found to have violated some school policy. Any sanction would remain private unless the parents or children announce it to the world.



Bringing lawyers into the mix who immediately publicize the situation with deliberate incomplete information (they persist in omitting the "other behavior" aspect) is an obvious intimidation tactic.
However, since the publicity-seeking WILL is in involved, the odds are that any sanctions will be made public. It is possible that attempted intimidation backfires on the parents and these children with more severe sanctions if children are found to have violated school policy.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.
You assume a rational and sequential process without any evidence to support your conjectures.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.
Your opinion is not based on any knowledge about the US. There would be no "stain" attached to these children. There is no criminal or civil complaint.

We (which includes you) have no clue what the possible repercussions on these children will be if they are found to have violated some school policy. Any sanction would remain private unless the parents or children announce it to the world.
The process is part of the punishment. And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.

Bringing lawyers into the mix who immediately publicize the situation with deliberate incomplete information (they persist in omitting the "other behavior" aspect) is an obvious intimidation tactic.
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

However, since the publicity-seeking WILL is in involved, the odds are that any sanctions will be made public. It is possible that attempted intimidation backfires on the parents and these children with more severe sanctions if children are found to have violated school policy.
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.

Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.
You assume a rational and sequential process without any evidence to support your conjectures.
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
I've asked this question of other...right leaning posters here...but I'll ask it again.

Is there a central source for these "liberal outrage of the week" stories?
No. It may surprise you to know that the internet is decentralised.

Do you get an email alert with the "woke" story of the moment?
No, but I'm sure I could if I wanted to, just as I'm sure there are thousands of left-wing outrage mailing lists.

Is it a "share this example of how the radical left is destroying America" thing on the socials, or do you have to subscribe to the source so you get the story that makes you pig-biting mad enough to share?
Now that I've answered your questions, do you intend to refrain from this line of questioning, or will you bring it up again in the future so that you can 'just ask questions' again?

As a frozen food heir says, I'm just asking questions...
It's evident you are just taking pot shots.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.
Your opinion is not based on any knowledge about the US. There would be no "stain" attached to these children. There is no criminal or civil complaint.

We (which includes you) have no clue what the possible repercussions on these children will be if they are found to have violated some school policy. Any sanction would remain private unless the parents or children announce it to the world.
The process is part of the punishment. And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.

Bringing lawyers into the mix who immediately publicize the situation with deliberate incomplete information (they persist in omitting the "other behavior" aspect) is an obvious intimidation tactic.
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

However, since the publicity-seeking WILL is in involved, the odds are that any sanctions will be made public. It is possible that attempted intimidation backfires on the parents and these children with more severe sanctions if children are found to have violated school policy.
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.

Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.
You assume a rational and sequential process without any evidence to support your conjectures.
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

I wonder if you’ve considered that the parents of the child who allegedly was the object of the offensive behavior might have also consulted an attorney?

Whether you realize it or do not, such behavior as is alleged by the school could put it out of compliance with Title IX if the schools does nothing to acknowledge and correct the behavior. The school is legally obligated to investigate. This is a serious matter.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.
Your opinion is not based on any knowledge about the US. There would be no "stain" attached to these children. There is no criminal or civil complaint.

We (which includes you) have no clue what the possible repercussions on these children will be if they are found to have violated some school policy. Any sanction would remain private unless the parents or children announce it to the world.
The process is part of the punishment. And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.

Bringing lawyers into the mix who immediately publicize the situation with deliberate incomplete information (they persist in omitting the "other behavior" aspect) is an obvious intimidation tactic.
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

However, since the publicity-seeking WILL is in involved, the odds are that any sanctions will be made public. It is possible that attempted intimidation backfires on the parents and these children with more severe sanctions if children are found to have violated school policy.
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.

Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.
You assume a rational and sequential process without any evidence to support your conjectures.
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

I wonder if you’ve considered that the parents of the child who allegedly was the object of the offensive behavior might have also consulted an attorney?
What has that to do with laughing dog's criticism of the parents who engaged the attorney?

Whether you realize it or do not, such behavior as is alleged by the school could put it out of compliance with Title IX if the schools does nothing to acknowledge and correct the behavior. The school is legally obligated to investigate. This is a serious matter.
You are begging the question: "acknowledge and correct".

If 13 year olds "mispronouning" is indeed a "serious matter" that is a violation of Title IX, then gender ideology is even more perniciously pervasive than I thought. And I think it's pretty perniciously pervasive.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,501
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.

While occasionally the parents of victims will bring lawyers into the matter it makes no sense for the parents of the accused, it simply isn't worthwhile. Then the lawyers went to the press. This screams poor-persecuted-Christian setup. It's a common tactic.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.

We have no idea of the whole picture, only what the lawyers are presenting. The school can't go to the press with the true situation.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.

While occasionally the parents of victims will bring lawyers into the matter it makes no sense for the parents of the accused, it simply isn't worthwhile.
It isn't worthwhile for you. When you or your children are the accused, you get to call the shots of your defense.

Then the lawyers went to the press. This screams poor-persecuted-Christian setup. It's a common tactic.
Nobody brought up religion.

The lawyers going to the press would only have been pursued if the lawyers thought it advantageous. In other words, the lawyers think public sentiment would not be favourable to the administrators of the school. In my opinion, they were correct in their assessment.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.

We have no idea of the whole picture, only what the lawyers are presenting. The school can't go to the press with the true situation.
The letters to the parents have been published. Of course we don't know the whole picture, but that has not stopped some posters from speculating on exactly what they think is likely to have happened.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world? That is rubbish.
And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.
Suppose the investigation ends up saying nothing was violated - how would that be negative?




Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
Metaphor said:
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.
They are probably required to make such a suggestion.
Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.


Metaphor said:
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.

 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
In your opinion, the lawyers were engaged to 'intimidate' the school district. I can think of a number of reasons to engage a lawyer that are not that and I would have done the same. But, even if that were the case that it was to 'intimidate' the school district, it still would not be wrong to have done so, since the stain of 'sexual harassment' is particularly blemishing and, in my opinion, 'mispronouning' is not sexual harassment and does not amount to a Title IX infringement.
Your opinion is not based on any knowledge about the US. There would be no "stain" attached to these children. There is no criminal or civil complaint.

We (which includes you) have no clue what the possible repercussions on these children will be if they are found to have violated some school policy. Any sanction would remain private unless the parents or children announce it to the world.
The process is part of the punishment. And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.

Bringing lawyers into the mix who immediately publicize the situation with deliberate incomplete information (they persist in omitting the "other behavior" aspect) is an obvious intimidation tactic.
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

However, since the publicity-seeking WILL is in involved, the odds are that any sanctions will be made public. It is possible that attempted intimidation backfires on the parents and these children with more severe sanctions if children are found to have violated school policy.
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.

Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.

Of course it does not. Had the the more serious charge been something other than "mispronouning", it would have been described in the original accusation.
You assume a rational and sequential process without any evidence to support your conjectures.
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

I wonder if you’ve considered that the parents of the child who allegedly was the object of the offensive behavior might have also consulted an attorney?
What has that to do with laughing dog's criticism of the parents who engaged the attorney?

Whether you realize it or do not, such behavior as is alleged by the school could put it out of compliance with Title IX if the schools does nothing to acknowledge and correct the behavior. The school is legally obligated to investigate. This is a serious matter.
You are begging the question: "acknowledge and correct".

If 13 year olds "mispronouning" is indeed a "serious matter" that is a violation of Title IX, then gender ideology is even more perniciously pervasive than I thought. And I think it's pretty perniciously pervasive.
I don’t really care about laughing dog’s arguments. Either the victim’s family or the accused’s family/ies could have retained attorneys. We only know that some of the accused’s family did retain an attorney.

Further. We only really know the accused’s side: they claim that it was a simple error in a confusing time as they adapted to this new situation.

While I definitely can imagine a school encouraging this POV and attempting to ward off future similar problems, this assumes that the school is being non-supportive of the victim and their situation. I’m not certain this is the most likely scenario.

It is more likely, given my observation of schools in the US and adolescent behavior, I find it more likely that the accused boys attorneys and parents are downplaying and glossing over events and the severity of ‘forgetting’ to use the requested pronouns. It is highly likely that the accused boys were deliberately engaging in goading and bullying of a particularly vulnerable classmate. This is not unusual behavior but it can be extremely damaging to the victims and can create a hostile environment not only for the direct victim but for any other student who does not conform to whatever standards the bullies choose.

You are taking at face value as truth that the accused boys made a simple error in using the wrong pronouns. I don’t take such claims at face value. The school would have been unlikely to have taken any steps to discipline the boys if it had merely been an unintended error. Schools do not like negative attention or publicity. This is exactly what schools prefer to avoid.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.

That is rubbish.
And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.
Suppose the investigation ends up saying nothing was violated - how would that be negative?
It depends on why the investigation says nothing was violated.

If the sole 'misbehaviour' here is 'mispronouning' (and I acknowledge that this it is not clear that it is), then the actual existence of the investigation is absurdity. It's a sign of the pervasiveness of gender madness in the United States. It will have put three 13 year olds through a lot of stress and anxiety over a fictive crime.

Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
To get the best outcome for their clients.

Metaphor said:
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.
They are probably required to make such a suggestion.
So why are you so upset that people take the suggestion seriously?

Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.

It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.

Metaphor said:
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.

 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
I don’t really care about laughing dog’s arguments. Either the victim’s family or the accused’s family/ies could have retained attorneys. We only know that some of the accused’s family did retain an attorney.
And so what? Why is this important? Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to defend yourself from a charge of sexual harassment by engaging a lawyer?

Further. We only really know the accused’s side: they claim that it was a simple error in a confusing time as they adapted to this new situation.
We know one of the accused's side.

While I definitely can imagine a school encouraging this POV and attempting to ward off future similar problems, this assumes that the school is being non-supportive of the victim and their situation.
Using language like saying 'the victim' is begging the question. You mean: the complainant.

I’m not certain this is the most likely scenario.

It is more likely, given my observation of schools in the US and adolescent behavior, I find it more likely that the accused boys attorneys and parents are downplaying and glossing over events and the severity of ‘forgetting’ to use the requested pronouns. It is highly likely that the accused boys were deliberately engaging in goading and bullying of a particularly vulnerable classmate.
Yes. You've offered your opinion on this already.

This is not unusual behavior but it can be extremely damaging to the victims and can create a hostile environment not only for the direct victim but for any other student who does not conform to whatever standards the bullies choose.

You are taking at face value as truth that the accused boys made a simple error in using the wrong pronouns.
No. I am going much further. I am saying they used the right pronouns. The bullies here are the complainant and the school administration.

I don’t take such claims at face value. The school would have been unlikely to have taken any steps to discipline the boys if it had merely been an unintended error. Schools do not like negative attention or publicity. This is exactly what schools prefer to avoid.
You keep begging the question.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
That is rubbish.
And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.
Suppose the investigation ends up saying nothing was violated - how would that be negative?
It depends on why the investigation says nothing was violated.

If the sole 'misbehaviour' here is 'mispronouning' (and I acknowledge that this it is not clear that it is), then the actual existence of the investigation is absurdity. It's a sign of the pervasiveness of gender madness in the United States. It will have put three 13 year olds through a lot of stress and anxiety over a fictive crime.
In other words, it is negative because it upsets your sensibilities.
Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
To get the best outcome for their clients.
And how does publicizing this get the best outcome for the clients?

Metaphor said:
How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.
They are probably required to make such a suggestion.
So why are you so upset that people take the suggestion seriously?
I'm not upset.
Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.

Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.

As it is, now that family is in the news in their school district. Now, their son's situation has been publicized. While WILL can control the flow of information during this process (because the school district is required to keep these accusation and decisions confidential) to put the school in a poor light regardless of the actual actions of these children. And, if that people in that area are anything like people throughout the Midwest, a large portion of them will automatically think those 3 children are guilty and deserve some sort of punishment. So, if the parents were trying to avoid some sort of stain of their son, their course of action will probably backfire to some extent.




Metaphor said:
I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

That is rubbish.
And while I don't know the specific repercussions, I don't need to be in the US school system to know it'll be negative.
Suppose the investigation ends up saying nothing was violated - how would that be negative?
It depends on why the investigation says nothing was violated.

If the sole 'misbehaviour' here is 'mispronouning' (and I acknowledge that this it is not clear that it is), then the actual existence of the investigation is absurdity. It's a sign of the pervasiveness of gender madness in the United States. It will have put three 13 year olds through a lot of stress and anxiety over a fictive crime.
In other words, it is negative because it upsets your sensibilities.
No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
To get the best outcome for their clients.
And how does publicizing this get the best outcome for the clients?
I have already explained one possible reason. The attorneys think public sentiment would be against the school if the facts are known. I believe the attorneys are correct in their assessment.


How Machiavellian of the school, to suggest the parents may want an adviser who 'may or may not be an attorney'.
They are probably required to make such a suggestion.
So why are you so upset that people take the suggestion seriously?
I'm not upset.
No, you merely criticised the parents for making a decision where you would have chosen differently (and of course, where 'ordinary parents' would have chosen differently, in your opinion).

Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.
I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.

Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.
Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.
There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

Your suggestion seems to me a recommendation to let the accused go to trial without an attorney, but 'get lawyers involved' once the guilty verdict is pronounced.

As it is, now that family is in the news in their school district. Now, their son's situation has been publicized. While WILL can control the flow of information during this process (because the school district is required to keep these accusation and decisions confidential) to put the school in a poor light regardless of the actual actions of these children. And, if that people in that area are anything like people throughout the Midwest, a large portion of them will automatically think those 3 children are guilty and deserve some sort of punishment. So, if the parents were trying to avoid some sort of stain of their son, their course of action will probably backfire to some extent.
The attorneys did not think so. Perhaps they are incompetent.


I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.

 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I don’t really care about laughing dog’s arguments. Either the victim’s family or the accused’s family/ies could have retained attorneys. We only know that some of the accused’s family did retain an attorney.
And so what? Why is this important? Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to defend yourself from a charge of sexual harassment by engaging a lawyer?

Further. We only really know the accused’s side: they claim that it was a simple error in a confusing time as they adapted to this new situation.
We know one of the accused's side.

While I definitely can imagine a school encouraging this POV and attempting to ward off future similar problems, this assumes that the school is being non-supportive of the victim and their situation.
Using language like saying 'the victim' is begging the question. You mean: the complainant.

I’m not certain this is the most likely scenario.

It is more likely, given my observation of schools in the US and adolescent behavior, I find it more likely that the accused boys attorneys and parents are downplaying and glossing over events and the severity of ‘forgetting’ to use the requested pronouns. It is highly likely that the accused boys were deliberately engaging in goading and bullying of a particularly vulnerable classmate.
Yes. You've offered your opinion on this already.

This is not unusual behavior but it can be extremely damaging to the victims and can create a hostile environment not only for the direct victim but for any other student who does not conform to whatever standards the bullies choose.

You are taking at face value as truth that the accused boys made a simple error in using the wrong pronouns.
No. I am going much further. I am saying they used this e right pronouns. The bullies here are the complainant and the school administration.

I don’t take such claims at face value. The school would have been unlikely to have taken any steps to discipline the boys if it had merely been an unintended error. Schools do not like negative attention or publicity. This is exactly what schools prefer to avoid.
You keep begging the question.
Upthread, I offered the opinion that it might be in the accused’s best interests to retain an attorney.
But here's your entire point, your entire reason to post in this thread:

No. I am going much further. I am saying they used this e right pronouns. The bullies here are the complainant and the school administration.

Your real issue seems to be that 3 middle school aged boys are being reprimanded for transphobic behavior--behavior which you completely applaud.

This is not at all different than a different kind of bigot 40 or 50 years complaining that some poor boys' lives were being ruined because they dared refer to a (insert racial epithet) as a (same racial epithet).

It's the same damn thing. In my day, it was calling people racial epithets. In my kids' day, it was calling another child by term commonly applied to those with developmental delays in previous eras. Now you're outraged that some kids are not going to be allowed to bully a child YOU disapprove of by using previously acceptable words.


 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760

Your real issue seems to be that 3 middle school aged boys are being reprimanded for transphobic behavior--behavior which you completely applaud.
Your understanding of what I think the 'real issue' is, is wrong.

This is not at all different than a different kind of bigot 40 or 50 years complaining that some poor boys' lives were being ruined because they dared refer to a (insert racial epithet) as a (same racial epithet).
Yes. I already understand you think that incidentally but correctly referring to somebody's biological sex via a pronoun is like using a racial epithet.

It's the same damn thing.
It's nothing like the same damn thing, Toni. It is a false-and rather ridiculous-analogy.

In my day, it was calling people racial epithets. In my kids' day, it was calling another child by term commonly applied to those with developmental delays in previous eras. Now you're outraged that some kids are not going to be allowed to bully a child YOU disapprove of by using previously acceptable words.
I was not aware that 'she' and 'her' are no longer acceptable words.

 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
It is not clear at all.

You bolded:
Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.
What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
It is not clear at all.

You bolded:
Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.
What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?
Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Your real issue seems to be that 3 middle school aged boys are being reprimanded for transphobic behavior--behavior which you completely applaud.
Your understanding of what I think the 'real issue' is, is wrong.

This is not at all different than a different kind of bigot 40 or 50 years complaining that some poor boys' lives were being ruined because they dared refer to a (insert racial epithet) as a (same racial epithet).
Yes. I already understand you think that incidentally but correctly referring to somebody's biological sex via a pronoun is like using a racial epithet.

It's the same damn thing.
It's nothing like the same damn thing, Toni. It is a false-and rather ridiculous-analogy.

In my day, it was calling people racial epithets. In my kids' day, it was calling another child by term commonly applied to those with developmental delays in previous eras. Now you're outraged that some kids are not going to be allowed to bully a child YOU disapprove of by using previously acceptable words.
I was not aware that 'she' and 'her' are no longer acceptable words.

Nah. Your views on tolerance and on trans individuals is well known and well documented on this site.

Context is everything. There is nothing wrong with the word retarded but it is no longer acceptable when applied to a developmentally challenged individual. She/her and other female pronouns have long been used to ridicule boys. It's frowned upon now but apparently you are fine with it. No surprises there. At all.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.
An investigation is usually required to determine if a behavior or action does violate a rule. So this boils down to investigations are punishment when they offend your sensibilities.
No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.
But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.
Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
To get the best outcome for their clients.
And how does publicizing this get the best outcome for the clients?
I have already explained one possible reason. The attorneys think public sentiment would be against the school if the facts are known. I believe the attorneys are correct in their assessment.
So, they are trying to bully the school district.
Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.
I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.
"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.
Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.
Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.
Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and
2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.
There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

Your suggestion seems to me a recommendation to let the accused go to trial without an attorney, but 'get lawyers involved' once the guilty verdict is pronounced.
Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.
As it is, now that family is in the news in their school district. Now, their son's situation has been publicized. While WILL can control the flow of information during this process (because the school district is required to keep these accusation and decisions confidential) to put the school in a poor light regardless of the actual actions of these children. And, if that people in that area are anything like people throughout the Midwest, a large portion of them will automatically think those 3 children are guilty and deserve some sort of punishment. So, if the parents were trying to avoid some sort of stain of their son, their course of action will probably backfire to some extent.
The attorneys did not think so. Perhaps they are incompetent.
I suspect that the attorneys are focusing on winning and making publicity for themselves, not on what is best for these children in this situation.

I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.
You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations. Once again, you are very much mistaken.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
It is not clear at all.

You bolded:
Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.
What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?
Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.
No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760

Your real issue seems to be that 3 middle school aged boys are being reprimanded for transphobic behavior--behavior which you completely applaud.
Your understanding of what I think the 'real issue' is, is wrong.

This is not at all different than a different kind of bigot 40 or 50 years complaining that some poor boys' lives were being ruined because they dared refer to a (insert racial epithet) as a (same racial epithet).
Yes. I already understand you think that incidentally but correctly referring to somebody's biological sex via a pronoun is like using a racial epithet.

It's the same damn thing.
It's nothing like the same damn thing, Toni. It is a false-and rather ridiculous-analogy.

In my day, it was calling people racial epithets. In my kids' day, it was calling another child by term commonly applied to those with developmental delays in previous eras. Now you're outraged that some kids are not going to be allowed to bully a child YOU disapprove of by using previously acceptable words.
I was not aware that 'she' and 'her' are no longer acceptable words.

Nah. Your views on tolerance and on trans individuals is well known and well documented on this site.

Context is everything. There is nothing wrong with the word retarded but it is no longer acceptable when applied to a developmentally challenged individual. She/her and other female pronouns have long been used to ridicule boys. It's frowned upon now but apparently you are fine with it. No surprises there. At all.
What is surprising is that you think 'she/her' has long been used to ridicule girls.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Your real issue seems to be that 3 middle school aged boys are being reprimanded for transphobic behavior--behavior which you completely applaud.
Your understanding of what I think the 'real issue' is, is wrong.

This is not at all different than a different kind of bigot 40 or 50 years complaining that some poor boys' lives were being ruined because they dared refer to a (insert racial epithet) as a (same racial epithet).
Yes. I already understand you think that incidentally but correctly referring to somebody's biological sex via a pronoun is like using a racial epithet.

It's the same damn thing.
It's nothing like the same damn thing, Toni. It is a false-and rather ridiculous-analogy.

In my day, it was calling people racial epithets. In my kids' day, it was calling another child by term commonly applied to those with developmental delays in previous eras. Now you're outraged that some kids are not going to be allowed to bully a child YOU disapprove of by using previously acceptable words.
I was not aware that 'she' and 'her' are no longer acceptable words.

Nah. Your views on tolerance and on trans individuals is well known and well documented on this site.

Context is everything. There is nothing wrong with the word retarded but it is no longer acceptable when applied to a developmentally challenged individual. She/her and other female pronouns have long been used to ridicule boys. It's frowned upon now but apparently you are fine with it. No surprises there. At all.
What is surprising is that you think 'she/her' has long been used to ridicule girls.
What’s not surprising is your convenient lack of reading comprehension.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
It is not clear at all.

You bolded:
Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.
What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?
Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.
No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
I provided the text of Title IX.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished and their record will follow them into adulthood. You are offering zero evidence but merely your conjecture. You opine that an internet search will tie these middle school allegations and spoil their chance of getting into college. Yet their names are not public because they are minors.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punishment in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.
An investigation is usually required to determine if a behavior or action does violate a rule. So this boils down to investigations are punishment when they offend your sensibilities.
No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.
But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.
If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

One of the accused boys is indeed distressed, which you might see if you watched the interviews with him and his mother.

But, even without having watched such a video, I need only remember what it was like to be a 13 year old boy, and imagine my parents receiving a letter accusing me of sexual harassment, to know he is probably very stressed and anxious.

Metaphor said:
It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?
To get the best outcome for their clients.
And how does publicizing this get the best outcome for the clients?
I have already explained one possible reason. The attorneys think public sentiment would be against the school if the facts are known. I believe the attorneys are correct in their assessment.
So, they are trying to bully the school district.
No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.
I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.
"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.
No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.

Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.
Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.
Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and
Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.

2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.
And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.
There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

Your suggestion seems to me a recommendation to let the accused go to trial without an attorney, but 'get lawyers involved' once the guilty verdict is pronounced.
Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.
Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.

As it is, now that family is in the news in their school district. Now, their son's situation has been publicized. While WILL can control the flow of information during this process (because the school district is required to keep these accusation and decisions confidential) to put the school in a poor light regardless of the actual actions of these children. And, if that people in that area are anything like people throughout the Midwest, a large portion of them will automatically think those 3 children are guilty and deserve some sort of punishment. So, if the parents were trying to avoid some sort of stain of their son, their course of action will probably backfire to some extent.
The attorneys did not think so. Perhaps they are incompetent.
I suspect that the attorneys are focusing on winning and making publicity for themselves, not on what is best for these children in this situation.
No doubt you suspect that.


I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.
You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.
You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?

 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
The process is part of the punishment.
So investigations are punismhent in your world?
No. I said the process is part of the punishment.
How is the process part of the punishment?
The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

Please go back and read my post #10 in this thread. It is pretty clear that the deliberate misuse of incorrect pronouns violates Title IX. I bolded the relevant portion.
It is not clear at all.

You bolded:
Title IX also prohibits gender-based harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s sex, harassing conduct based on a student’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes.
What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?
Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.
No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
I provided the text of Title IX.
Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem
I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.
It is your job to evidence assertions you make.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished
The investigation is certainly causing stress and anxiety, and it beggars belief that you would not think so. As to whether they are being punished by the investigation depends on the motivations of the school administration.

and their record will follow them into adulthood. You are offering zero evidence but merely your conjecture. You opine that an internet search will tie these middle school allegations and spoil their chance of getting into college. Yet their names are not public because they are minors.
I don't know if you understand how the internet works, but since the names of one of the parents has been disclosed publically, it follows that the identity of the son in question would be easy to discover. I won't dox anybody involved but I can assure you, there would be discussion boards on the internet revealing all the information if you searched for it and wanted it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.
The example you gave was one that offended your sensibilities.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.
But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.
If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

One of the accused boys is indeed distressed, which you might see if you watched the interviews with him and his mother.

But, even without having watched such a video, I need only remember what it was like to be a 13 year old boy, and imagine my parents receiving a letter accusing me of sexual harassment, to know he is probably very stressed and anxious.
"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.
No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.
First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.
Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.
I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.
"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.
No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.
I dismiss opinions based on clear ignorance.
Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.
Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.
Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and
Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.
WOW - I do feel sorry for you and the burden these ridiculous OPs stain you forever.
2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.
And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.
Thank you for that needless permission. I suppose you had a relevant point, but you hide it well.
Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.
There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

Your suggestion seems to me a recommendation to let the accused go to trial without an attorney, but 'get lawyers involved' once the guilty verdict is pronounced.
Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.
Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.
Since no one is requiring anyone to respond in a certain way, wtf are you babbling on about now?

I think that bringing in lawyers at this stage is a mistake. Just like you think investigating these 3 children is a mistake. Yet, for some reason, it is okay for you to fling hysterical accusations but it is not okay for me to express my opinion.

I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.
You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.
You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?
Are you under the misimpression that an assertion is the same thing as an assumption?
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,760
No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.
The example you gave was one that offended your sensibilities.
Whether an investigation offends my sensibilities is not what could make an investigation part of the punishment.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.
But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.
If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

One of the accused boys is indeed distressed, which you might see if you watched the interviews with him and his mother.

But, even without having watched such a video, I need only remember what it was like to be a 13 year old boy, and imagine my parents receiving a letter accusing me of sexual harassment, to know he is probably very stressed and anxious.
"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.
Okay. You think it's unreasonable to assume that a 13 year old would be distressed by being investigated for sexual harassment. I get it.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.
First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.
Oy gevalt. So, everybody in the world is a bully when they try to persuade others using facts.

Metaphor said:
Everything about the letter to the students would make ordinary parents lawyer up. It is well justified.
Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.
Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.
You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.
I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.
"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.
No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.
I dismiss opinions based on clear ignorance.
You think I am ignorant to assume the WILL lawyers know something about public sentiment, and that I am ignorant when I speculate that more parents would be on the side of the accused if they knew the 'sexual harassment' charges were for 'mispronouning', than if they were in the dark about what the 'sexual harassment' charges were for.

I think the majority of American parents - notwithstanding the parents in California - would not agree that 'mispronouning' is sexual harassment, nor would they agree that a school should Title IX investigate 13 year olds accused of 'mispronouning'.

Furthermore, I have had children who were disciplined (literally, a terroristic threat, and for assaulting another student) or investigated for possible discipline (threatening to blow up the school and another for destruction of school property) in school for threatening an aide . None had any trouble in being accepted into college/university because disciplinary records in K-12 are not permanent records. Moreover, there was no pubic stain on them because we didn't bring any lawyers into it.
Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.
Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and
Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.
WOW - I do feel sorry for you and the burden these ridiculous OPs stain you forever.
I don't believe they stain me.

2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.
And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.
Thank you for that needless permission. I suppose you had a relevant point, but you hide it well.
Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.
It's also telling that you would shame parents for responding to the school's own suggestion.
You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.
There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

Your suggestion seems to me a recommendation to let the accused go to trial without an attorney, but 'get lawyers involved' once the guilty verdict is pronounced.
Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.
Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.
Since no one is requiring anyone to respond in a certain way, wtf are you babbling on about now?

I think that bringing in lawyers at this stage is a mistake. Just like you think investigating these 3 children is a mistake. Yet, for some reason, it is okay for you to fling hysterical accusations but it is not okay for me to express my opinion.
What hysterical accusations have I made?


I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.
Every response you make is based on assumptions.
As is everyone's.
Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.
You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.
You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.
You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?
Are you under the misimpression that an assertion is the same thing as an assumption?
Your assertion is based on your assumption, unless your assertion is based on nothing at all.

 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,015
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Top Bottom