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

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

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

readlion.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

Mispronouning is the only named misdemeanour in the charges, but I am not discussing only the school's attitude.

The OP is about the school. Mispronouning and other behaviors is the charge. You keep focusing on one part out of context.

I am focusing on the known facts. One of these facts is that "mispronouning" is an act the school believes warrants a Title IX investigation.

You are focusing on know facts out of context.

ZiprHead and Toni believe that 'mispronouning' on its own is harassment. Toni has allowed some "wiggle room" for a small number of "mistakes" before she calls it harassment.

You are either being sloppy or inconsistent. While "mispronouning" may not automatically be harassment, it may be part of the act of harassment.

I have never denied there are multiple avenues to harassment.

But your entire argument ignores that possibility.

No, it doesn't, and if you think I ever argued that "mispronouning" could not be used as an avenue of harassment, you are mistaken.

For example if someone persistently, quickly and nastily "mispronouns" someone who is visibly upset and is continually asked to stop, and the target has a breakdown, I would consider that harassment. I would consider it harassment if this occurred persistently over a number of times and days.

I would consider first the motivations of each person

It ought to be obvious that motivation of someone who continues to mispronoun someone else who is visibly upset with it is not benign.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

The mispronouning is described by one of the accused.

So? See above. It also does not mean the school thinks it is automatically a problem.

Well, the school administration certainly appears awash with hypocrisy at any rate: apparently staff described the complainant as 'she' in several exchanges.

How do you that is "mispronouning"?

It's "mispronouning" because the complainant demands 'they/them', not 'she'.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it doesn't, and if you think I ever argued that "mispronouning" could not be used as an avenue of harassment, you are mistake

Your persistent complaint about one aspect out of context by construction ignores the other possibilities. Furthermore, you have literally dismissed the "and other behavior" part of the allegation because it offends your sensibilities.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

Why are you babbling about gender ideologists? This example was a specific situation about how "mispronouning" could reasonably construed as harassment.

In that example, itis obvious to any human being with genuine feelings. Your response is literally defending someone who is deliberately trying to upset another person. All I can say wow.

The mispronouning is described by one of the accused.

So? See above. It also does not mean the school thinks it is automatically a problem.

Well, the school administration certainly appears awash with hypocrisy at any rate: apparently staff described the complainant as 'she' in several exchanges.

How do you that is "mispronouning"?

It's "mispronouning" because the complainant demands 'they/them', not 'she'.

How do you know there is only one complainant?

 

[Metaphor]

No, it doesn't, and if you think I ever argued that "mispronouning" could not be used as an avenue of harassment, you are mistake

Your persistent complaint about one aspect out of context by construction ignores the other possibilities. Furthermore, you have literally dismissed the "and other behavior" part of the allegation because it offends your sensibilities.

There is nothing to talk about with the 'other behaviour' because nobody has volunteered what it was supposed to be.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

Why are you babbling about gender ideologists? This example was a specific situation about how "mispronouning" could reasonably construed as harassment.

I am not 'babbling'. I am telling you that something you find 'obvious' is not at all obvious.

In that example, itis obvious to any human being with genuine feelings. Your response is literally defending someone who is deliberately trying to upset another person. All I can say wow.

No. Again, you clearly do not seem to be able to follow what I'm saying, but worse, you are mischaracterising it. I said there could be cases of mispronouning that have upsetting somebody as a side effect. There are reasons other than 'deliberately trying to upset' somebody to (what gender ideologists would call) 'mispronoun' people. One of those reasons is that demanded pronouns are an authoritarian impost on others.

The mispronouning is described by one of the accused.

So? See above. It also does not mean the school thinks it is automatically a problem.

Well, the school administration certainly appears awash with hypocrisy at any rate: apparently staff described the complainant as 'she' in several exchanges.

How do you that is "mispronouning"?

It's "mispronouning" because the complainant demands 'they/them', not 'she'.

How do you know there is only one complainant?

From reading the article.

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing to talk about with the 'other behaviour' because nobody has volunteered what it was supposed to be.

True, but that doesn't mean it is intellectually honest to ignore that allegation.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

Why are you babbling about gender ideologists? This example was a specific situation about how "mispronouning" could reasonably construed as harassment.

I am not 'babbling'. I am telling you that something you find 'obvious' is not at all obvious.

"Gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. I realize they are your obsession (which is ironic since you are also a gender ideologist of a different stripe), but "gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. Thus it is effectively babble to bring them in.

In that example, itis obvious to any human being with genuine feelings. Your response is literally defending someone who is deliberately trying to upset another person. All I can say wow.

No. Again, you clearly do not seem to be able to follow what I'm saying, but worse, you are mischaracterising it.

My example was clear to the functionally literate- it was visibly upsetting someone, they were asked to stop and didn't.

I said there could be cases of mispronouning that have upsetting somebody as a side effect. There are reasons other than 'deliberately trying to upset' somebody to (what gender ideologists would call) 'mispronoun' people. One of those reasons is that demanded pronouns are an authoritarian impost on others.

Not relevant (see above).

How do you know there is only one complainant?

From reading the article.

But during the investigation, other people could complain about behavior in their testimony. More importantly, the complainant need not be the actual target of the alleged harassment.

 

[Metaphor]

There is nothing to talk about with the 'other behaviour' because nobody has volunteered what it was supposed to be.

True, but that doesn't mean it is intellectually honest to ignore that allegation.

There is nothing to discuss. When details of the alleged 'other behaviour' are available, they can be discussed. I have nothing to say about the 'other behaviour' until then, and neither should you.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

Why are you babbling about gender ideologists? This example was a specific situation about how "mispronouning" could reasonably construed as harassment.

I am not 'babbling'. I am telling you that something you find 'obvious' is not at all obvious.

"Gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. I realize they are your obsession (which is ironic since you are also a gender ideologist of a different stripe), but "gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. Thus it is effectively babble to bring them in.

"Mispronouning" as a crime is "obvious" to gender ideologists. Other people do not think it is automatically a crime.

In that example, itis obvious to any human being with genuine feelings. Your response is literally defending someone who is deliberately trying to upset another person. All I can say wow.

No. Again, you clearly do not seem to be able to follow what I'm saying, but worse, you are mischaracterising it.

My example was clear to the functionally literate- it was visibly upsetting someone, they were asked to stop and didn't.

Your example was nothing like 'clear'. Your 'example' assumes there is a moral obligation for people to refrain from speaking or utter things they don't believe because not doing so would have the side effect of upsetting a pronoun demander.

I said there could be cases of mispronouning that have upsetting somebody as a side effect. There are reasons other than 'deliberately trying to upset' somebody to (what gender ideologists would call) 'mispronoun' people. One of those reasons is that demanded pronouns are an authoritarian impost on others.

Not relevant (see above).

It's completely relevant. You simply cannot imagine why motivation matters.

How do you know there is only one complainant?

From reading the article.

But during the investigation, other people could complain about behavior in their testimony. More importantly, the complainant need not be the actual target of the alleged harassment.

The they/them pronoun demander was referred to as 'she' by the school administration.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is interesting, but disappointing, that some people would think that bullying by use of non-preferred pronouns has anything to do with gender ideology, rather than being an age-old thing.

Girls calling other girls boys, and boys calling other boys girls, is a long standing issue of bullying.

Hell, when I grew up in junior high I was called a girl and she for some time after a student asked me if I had a "pussy" before I knew entirely what "pussy" was supposed to mean.

So it's clear that the crime of using wrong pronouns to bully folks is not so much about gender ideology and is far more about the age old fact that kids bully each other and should not be left to do so freely without consequence.

It just happens this gives them a new target of opportunity.

This is one of a large and ancient set of bully tools in the bully toolbox, and is an easy tool to craft in any society where gender norms continue to exist.

The fact is it's unsurprising, and it was wrong for kids in my own class to do so, to the point where I should have stood up and let consequences be leveled. And it is wrong here, to the point where consequences have been leveled.

The clear reality is that we have three boys together who between them did not have the two useful brain cells to rub up against one another long enough to come to the conclusion that this kid did not want to be treated in such a way as they were treating them. The student had no way to avoid the interaction, and the bullies had the simple choice not to treat them that way or even to not treat them any way at all: they could have done what the vast majority of high school students do and entirely ignored each others' existence.

Of course there is a possibility that one psychotic student lied because psychotic folks exist. I have faith in the educators more than anyone else to have sussed it out.

They smelled a thruple of bullies.

 

[Jarhyn]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

 

[Toni]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

I think that admin. is only willing to do something because it is a Title IX issue. One of my kids faced some fierce, dangerous incidents and admin. just hand waved and denied. We knew the incidents were real and unprovoked because we heard about these incidents from other students, parents and at least one teacher. In fact, that's typically how we'd learn something happened, not from our kid.

 

[Toni]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

I meant to write this earlier but didn’t but I
am now:

Thank you for bringing up the larger issue of bullying and the fact that it is mostly ignored or hand waved at schools. At least by administration, who, at most, will pay lip service to anti-bullying measures.

Title IX was robs my the only reason that any action was taken in this instance.

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing to talk about with the 'other behaviour' because nobody has volunteered what it was supposed to be.

True, but that doesn't mean it is intellectually honest to ignore that allegation.

There is nothing to discuss. When details of the alleged 'other behaviour' are available, they can be discussed. I have nothing to say about the 'other behaviour' until then, and neither should you.

The "and other behavior" does not need to specified in order to keep the allegations in context. Normally, it would be baffling to understand why someone would wish to keep a discussion out of context, but not in this case.

It is only "obvious" to a gender ideologist. I have said many times that someone being upset may be a side effect of 'mispronouning', but that side effect does not justify the cognitive and behavioural demands made by gender ideologists by demanding pronouns.

Why are you babbling about gender ideologists? This example was a specific situation about how "mispronouning" could reasonably construed as harassment.

I am not 'babbling'. I am telling you that something you find 'obvious' is not at all obvious.

"Gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. I realize they are your obsession (which is ironic since you are also a gender ideologist of a different stripe), but "gender ideologists" were irrelevant to my examples. Thus it is effectively babble to bring them in.

"Mispronouning" as a crime is "obvious" to gender ideologists. Other people do not think it is automatically a crime.

The OP and the discussion about the school's investigation, not gender ideologists.

In that example, itis obvious to any human being with genuine feelings. Your response is literally defending someone who is deliberately trying to upset another person. All I can say wow.

No. Again, you clearly do not seem to be able to follow what I'm saying, but worse, you are mischaracterising it.

My example was clear to the functionally literate- it was visibly upsetting someone, they were asked to stop and didn't.

Your example was nothing like 'clear'.

Wow.

Your 'example' assumes there is a moral obligation for people to refrain from speaking or utter things they don't believe because not doing so would have the side effect of upsetting a pronoun demander..

Apparently you don't think that people who knowingly and are visibly upseting someone with their speech should not stop. This has nothing to do with morality but basic human decency.

While the above does not surprise me in the least, it does sadden me.

It is also telling you insist on using the term "demander" instead of "asker" or "pleader".

I said there could be cases of mispronouning that have upsetting somebody as a side effect. There are reasons other than 'deliberately trying to upset' somebody to (what gender ideologists would call) 'mispronoun' people. One of those reasons is that demanded pronouns are an authoritarian impost on others.

Not relevant (see above).

It's completely relevant. You simply cannot imagine why motivation matters.

Your confidence in your ability to read minds as well as to read written response correctly is unwarranted.

When someone is visibly upsetting another person and is asked to stop and does not, what "side effect" prompts the continuation?

How do you know there is only one complainant?

From reading the article.

But during the investigation, other people could complain about behavior in their testimony. More importantly, the complainant need not be the actual target of the alleged harassment.

The they/them pronoun demander was referred to as 'she' by the school administration.

And for some reason, you think that the asker and the complainant have to be the same person because....?

 

[Jarhyn]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

I meant to write this earlier but didn’t but I
am now:

Thank you for bringing up the larger issue of bullying and the fact that it is mostly ignored or hand waved at schools. At least by administration, who, at most, will pay lip service to anti-bullying measures.

Title IX was robs my the only reason that any action was taken in this instance.

I wonder if this means that there is legal leverage against this kind of shittiness in Title IX in general?

Can all such incidents in fact be pursued under Title IX?

 

[laughing dog]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

If the school had used anti-social" or "bullying' behavior instead of the triggering phrases of "mispronouning" and "sexual harassment", does anyone think there would have been such reactions from either the parents or the conservative media?

 

[Toni]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

If the school had used anti-social" or "bullying' behavior instead of the triggering phrases of "mispronouning" and "sexual harassment", does anyone think there would have been such reactions from either the parents or the conservative media?

No, and not from the school, either.

 

[Toni]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

I meant to write this earlier but didn’t but I
am now:

Thank you for bringing up the larger issue of bullying and the fact that it is mostly ignored or hand waved at schools. At least by administration, who, at most, will pay lip service to anti-bullying measures.

Title IX was robs my the only reason that any action was taken in this instance.

I wonder if this means that there is legal leverage against this kind of shittiness in Title IX in general?

Can all such incidents in fact be pursued under Title IX?

One can dream.

 

[blastula]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

What's the evidence that trans bullying is better addressed by schools than non-trans bullying?

 

[Jarhyn]

I should be clear insofar as I think there is a blatant problem exposed in or schools by this incident and it's adjudication:

This trans kid got their bullies put up for being shitty, and they likely only had leverage over the school to get the bullies put up because they were trans.

Every day this same behavior plays out a million times across hundreds of thousands of schools all over the world, and only the trans person seemingly has a right to get it stopped by administration.

I do find that to be an issue, in that if I was a student today, I might be able, given my gender non-conformity, to see respite against bullying. But if, say, @laughing dog or @Toni tried the same they would be told by the administration that "kids will be kids".

This leads me to the conclusion that while it is GOOD that trans people can seek this freedom from bullying, that we have a ways to go so that gender-normative bullying is made non-viable in general.

What's the evidence that trans bullying is better addressed by schools than non-trans bullying?

Read the thread:

...

I meant to write this earlier but didn’t but I
am now:

Thank you for bringing up the larger issue of bullying and the fact that it is mostly ignored or hand waved at schools. At least by administration, who, at most, will pay lip service to anti-bullying measures.

Title IX was robs my the only reason that any action was taken in this instance.

In my own post I detailed experiences in being bullied as a youth in american schools. I don't think anyone on the forum can honestly say they didn't observe this particular form of bullying.

It happened on these forums a few times.

It has happened in this thread, folks using wrong pronouns to make statements they know will have the effect of a denigrating attack.

We're all well aware that when the school can sweep things under the rug, often they will because school administrators hate the press.

I would be hard pressed to discuss a single time it happened and was not ignored. Then, if may also be ended more easily and quietly when it's straight kids?

At any rate, I would hope that this actually gives title IX leverage against the more general form of bullying behavior

 

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that admin. is only willing to do something because it is a Title IX issue. One of my kids faced some fierce, dangerous incidents and admin. just hand waved and denied. We knew the incidents were real and unprovoked because we heard about these incidents from other students, parents and at least one teacher. In fact, that's typically how we'd learn something happened, not from our kid.

Of course you didn't hear about it from your kid. The victims learn very early on that saying something brings retaliation but no help.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently you don't think that people who knowingly and are visibly upseting someone with their speech should not stop.

Whether they should stop depends on the circumstances. I can see circumstances where they should ad well as where they shouldn't. There is no moral obligation to stop merely because your speech upsets somebody else.

This has nothing to do with morality but basic human decency.

While the above does not surprise me in the least, it does sadden me.

It is also telling you insist on using the term "demander" instead of "asker" or "pleader".

Yes: my term is accurate, and reflects both the authoritarian power that gender ideologists wield and the steady ratcheting of expectations. Only a year or two ago, pronoun demands were merely 'preferred pronouns' - framing it as a polite request. They've since dropped the 'preferred' part; they argue that it is not a 'preference', it is simply their pronouns. And of course any vestige of it being a request is also fading. You will use these pronouns and we will punish you if you don't.

I have never demanded pronouns from anybody, not even Jarhyn, who--according to his own ideology--is continually misgendering me when he uses 'they' to talk about me.

When someone is visibly upsetting another person and is asked to stop and does not, what "side effect" prompts the continuation?

Someone being upset may be the side effect of the speech, but whether the speech ought continue does not depend merely on someone being upset by it.

Y and Z are sitting next to each other on the bus, and X is sitting behind them. Y and Z are talking about a story in the Koran, and X is visibly upset by it. Finally, she summons up the courage to say "I am a very committed Christian, and your talking about your faith and your god as if they were real is very upsetting. Can you please stop?"

Y and Z might stop talking to each other about the topic if they wanted to, but they have no moral obligation to do so.

How do you know there is only one complainant?

From reading the article.

But during the investigation, other people could complain about behavior in their testimony. More importantly, the complainant need not be the actual target of the alleged harassment.

The they/them pronoun demander was referred to as 'she' by the school administration.

And for some reason, you think that the asker and the complainant have to be the same person because....?

If the pronoun demander is not the complainant, but brought the action with her permission but not her request, then that paints an even worse picture of the power that gender ideology holds over institutions.

If the pronoun demander is not the complainant and the school brought the action against her desires, then the school's actions are even worse.

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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