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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.