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.

 

[Toni]

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.

I think less that than shame, in the case of my kid.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toni]

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.

What a bizarre, fantastical absolutely not in anyway pertinent to this discussion hypothetical story to bring to this discussion.

Not on point and not in anyway relevant except to your rather puzzling obsession with religion.

 

[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?

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

So, no useful evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

There you go again with that moral obligation babble. Please stop trying to shift the goal posts. Being a decent person is not a moral obligation. It is choice based on consideration of and kindness towards others.

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.

You have no clue how these people in this situation asked. So your term reveals only your irrational obsession and nothing else.

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.

Why do you continue to babble about moral obligations? It as if you do not even bother to read the content of the posts to which you reply.

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.

Why would anyone think that someone needs the permission of a victim to bring a perceived violation of rules to the proper authority is truly baffling.

 

[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.

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

So, no useful evidence.

Apparently you did not read the thread. Title IX provides a mandate that schools address certain behaviors that pertain to harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and gender identity. Other types of bullying are not specifically outlined. Schools might get in trouble and/or lose funding.

 

[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

So, no useful evidence.

Apparently you did not read the thread. Title IX provides a mandate that schools address certain behaviors that pertain to harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and gender identity. Other types of bullying are not specifically outlined. Schools might get in trouble and/or lose funding.

Anything to not look bad...

 

[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.

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

So, no useful evidence.

Apparently you did not read the thread. Title IX provides a mandate that schools address certain behaviors that pertain to harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and gender identity. Other types of bullying are not specifically outlined. Schools might get in trouble and/or lose funding.

Anything to not look bad...

Or lose money.

 

[blastula]

Anything to not look bad...

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

 

[Toni]

Anything to not look bad...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

No, it has not been investigated (note the past tense) yet. The investigation is ongoing.

You're not making any sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anything to not look bad...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're not making any sense.

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

 

[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.

There you go again with that moral obligation babble. Please stop trying to shift the goal posts. Being a decent person is not a moral obligation. It is choice based on consideration of and kindness towards others.

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.

You have no clue how these people in this situation asked. So your term reveals only your irrational obsession and nothing else.

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.

Why do you continue to babble about moral obligations? It as if you do not even bother to read the content of the posts to which you reply.

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.

Why would anyone think that someone needs the permission of a victim to bring a perceived violation of rules to the proper authority is truly baffling.

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, luv.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the story says the investigation is concluded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're not making any sense.

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

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

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

How do you think it works?

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping your driveling derail about moral obligations.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for stopping your driveling derail about moral obligations.

Holy shit both of you, learn to use the markup editor and delete those ugly fucking reply danglies.

At any rate, it's nice to see Title IX get some exercise and I really hope this is generalizable to preventing gender-normative bullying in general

 

[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.

There you go again with that moral obligation babble. Please stop trying to shift the goal posts. Being a decent person is not a moral obligation. It is choice based on consideration of and kindness towards others.

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

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.

You have no clue how these people in this situation asked. So your term reveals only your irrational obsession and nothing else.

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

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.

Why do you continue to babble about moral obligations? It as if you do not even bother to read the content of the posts to which you reply.

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

Apparently you think 'decent' people would simply indulge the eavesdropping woman and the two men should stop talking about whatever they were talking about that upset the woman.