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]

The process is part of the punishment.

So investigations are punismhent in your world?

No. I said the process is part of the punishment.

How is the process part of the punishment?

The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

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

It is not clear at all.

You bolded:

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

What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?

Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.

No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I provided the text of Title IX.

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

The process is part of the punishment.

So investigations are punishment in your world?

No. I said the process is part of the punishment.

How is the process part of the punishment?

The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

An investigation is usually required to determine if a behavior or action does violate a rule. So this boils down to investigations are punishment when they offend your sensibilities.

No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

It is obvious to you and people who think like you.

---

That is true - it is obvious to people who think. What possible reason is there for the WILL to publicize this?

To get the best outcome for their clients.

And how does publicizing this get the best outcome for the clients?

I have already explained one possible reason. The attorneys think public sentiment would be against the school if the facts are known. I believe the attorneys are correct in their assessment.

So, they are trying to bully the school district.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

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

Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.

Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.

You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.

I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.

"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.

No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.

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

Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.

Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and

Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.

2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.

And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.

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

You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.

There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

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

Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.

Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.

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

The attorneys did not think so. Perhaps they are incompetent.

I suspect that the attorneys are focusing on winning and making publicity for themselves, not on what is best for these children in this situation.

No doubt you suspect that.

I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

Every response you make is based on assumptions.

As is everyone's.

Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.

You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.

You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.

You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?

 

[Metaphor]

The process is part of the punishment.

So investigations are punismhent in your world?

No. I said the process is part of the punishment.

How is the process part of the punishment?

The process can be part of the punishment in many instances. For example, if 'mispronouning' is neither against school policy nor a violation of Title IX, then investigating allegations of it is simply punitive.

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

It is not clear at all.

You bolded:

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

What you didn't do was make an argument. Has there been precedent that 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation?

Of course it is clear. I am not an attorney nor do I troll sites looking for Title IX violations. You are free to conduct such a search.

No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.

It is your job to evidence assertions you make.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished

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

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

I don't know if you understand how the internet works, but since the names of one of the parents has been disclosed publically, it follows that the identity of the son in question would be easy to discover. I won't dox anybody involved but I can assure you, there would be discussion boards on the internet revealing all the information if you searched for it and wanted it.

 

[laughing dog]

No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.

The example you gave was one that offended your sensibilities.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.

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

Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.

Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.

You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.

I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.

"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.

No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.

I dismiss opinions based on clear ignorance.

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

Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.

Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and

Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.

WOW - I do feel sorry for you and the burden these ridiculous OPs stain you forever.

2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.

And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.

Thank you for that needless permission. I suppose you had a relevant point, but you hide it well.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.

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

You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.

There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

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

Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.

Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.

Since no one is requiring anyone to respond in a certain way, wtf are you babbling on about now?

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

I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

Every response you make is based on assumptions.

As is everyone's.

Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.

You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.

You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.

You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?

Are you under the misimpression that an assertion is the same thing as an assumption?

 

[Metaphor]

No. Investigations can be part of the punishment depending on the circumstances and not my 'sensibilities'.

The example you gave was one that offended your sensibilities.

Whether an investigation offends my sensibilities is not what could make an investigation part of the punishment.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.

Okay. You think it's unreasonable to assume that a 13 year old would be distressed by being investigated for sexual harassment. I get it.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.

Oy gevalt. So, everybody in the world is a bully when they try to persuade others using facts.

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

Your ignorance of the US is very telling. There is nothing about that letter that would drive ordinary parents to lawyer up.

Your ignorance of ordinary people is very telling. I suspect your circle of friends excludes certain kinds of 'ordinary people'.

You know nothing about the US and how this works. Your suspicions, as your assumptions, are wrong. You know nothing about my neighborhood, my neighbors, my acquaintances, my volunteer groups or anything else.

I know enough about you that you are fond of pulling epistemological rank.

"Fond"? Nope. That is something else you know nothing about. It is true I point out your lack of knowledge on a regular basis but that is because you don't let ignorance get in the way of promoting your opinions.

No. You dismiss opinions you don't agree with by pulling epistemological rank.

I dismiss opinions based on clear ignorance.

You think I am ignorant to assume the WILL lawyers know something about public sentiment, and that I am ignorant when I speculate that more parents would be on the side of the accused if they knew the 'sexual harassment' charges were for 'mispronouning', than if they were in the dark about what the 'sexual harassment' charges were for.

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

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

Your children grew up in a different time, I suspect because the internet did not permanently enshrine their every thought and deed. In any case, I did not say you would or should not choose differently in 'lawyering up'.

Way to miss the point that
1) the notion that this is some sort of permanent stain is silly, and

Of course it's permanent. The internet is forever.

WOW - I do feel sorry for you and the burden these ridiculous OPs stain you forever.

I don't believe they stain me.

2) there are ways to deal with this to minimize any negative repercussions that do not involve lawyers.

And if that's how you want to deal with it when you are accused of sexual harassment, nobody is stopping you.

Thank you for that needless permission. I suppose you had a relevant point, but you hide it well.

Your position is extremely long on ignorancee-driven hysteria and short of reality-based reason.

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

You are shaming the school for investigating a complaint. I am not shaming anyone. Bringing in lawyers that publicize this situation at this stage is needless because it does not defuse the situation but ups the ante. There is plenty of time to get lawyers involved if and when some disciplinary action is decided.

There is plenty of time according to your particular sensibilities.

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

Since the children have not been suspended for their behavior while the investigation is taking place, the behavior is probably minor in comparison to automatic suspensions.

We are not talking about criminal or civil case (as I have pointed out), so likening this to legal proceeding is rather silly.

Yes, you've made it clear you think it's silly. But I think the accused gets to decide how they respond to charges of sexual harassment and they don't need your opinion or permission.

Since no one is requiring anyone to respond in a certain way, wtf are you babbling on about now?

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

What hysterical accusations have I made?

I assume that if two separate charges were against the students, the more serious charge would be mentioned.

Every response you make is based on assumptions.

As is everyone's.

Not true. Some people respond only to the facts.

You've made every assumption under the sun about this situation, so obviously you are not talking about yourself.

You confuse me with yourself. Unlike you, I have made no assumptions about what happened, what will happen or anyone's motivations.

You said the attorneys wanted to intimidate the school administration. Is that not an assertion about their motivations?

Are you under the misimpression that an assertion is the same thing as an assumption?

Your assertion is based on your assumption, unless your assertion is based on nothing at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Aah, defending bullies. Yay!

Begging the question.

You think there's a question whether those kids are bullies or not?

 

[Metaphor]

Aah, defending bullies. Yay!

Begging the question.

You think there's a question whether those kids are bullies or not?

Yes, and so do all those who think 'allegations' and 'guilty' are different words with different meanings.

 

[ZiprHead]

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

Have you tried telling that to the victim?

 

[Metaphor]

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

Have you tried telling that to the victim?

Begging the question again. You mean: the complainant.

 

[ZiprHead]

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

Deliberate obtuseness is unbecoming.

 

[Jarhyn]

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

Deliberate obtuseness is unbecoming.

Are you forgetting "no cop no stop"?

Unbecoming of what? The par for the course?

 

[ZiprHead]

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

Have you tried telling that to the victim?

Begging the question again. You mean: the complainant.

Yes, the complainant and the school itself. Do you think school administrators want to spend their time having to write personal letters to the parents of the students for no good reason?

 

[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.

No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.

It is your job to evidence assertions you make.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished

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

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

I don't know if you understand how the internet works, but since the names of one of the parents has been disclosed publically, it follows that the identity of the son in question would be easy to discover. I won't dox anybody involved but I can assure you, there would be discussion boards on the internet revealing all the information if you searched for it and wanted it.

I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. Especially when you refuse to understand or accept.

I do understand how the internet works. Too bad the parent outed themself.

I also understand how college admissions in the US works.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether an investigation offends my sensibilities is not what could make an investigation part of the punishment.

Then what could?

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.

Okay. You think it's unreasonable to assume that a 13 year old would be distressed by being investigated for sexual harassment. I get it.

Nope, that is not what I wrote. You used your imagination "to know he is probably very stressed and anxious". You cannot possibly know what level of stress and anxiety he is experiencing.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.

Oy gevalt. So, everybody in the world is a bully when they try to persuade others using facts.

We are discussing a specific situation, not a general rule. When one airs a private matter that does not involve the public and reveals only some of the facts in order to get the public to help persuade the school to change its mind, it is a form of bullying.

Moreover, WILL and the parents are threatening to sue the school if they do not relent (source: Parents threaten to sue middle school )

So it is reasonable conclusion that WILL is trying to bully the school.

You think I am ignorant to assume the WILL lawyers know something about public sentiment, and that I am ignorant when I speculate that more parents would be on the side of the accused if they knew the 'sexual harassment' charges were for 'mispronouning', than if they were in the dark about what the 'sexual harassment' charges were for.

No. I think you have no idea what these situations are like in the USA or how our public schools operate. But your mischaracterizations are duly noted.

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

Good for you. If your description of the situation is completely accurate, I agree.

I don't believe they stain me.

You are mistake

What hysterical accusations have I made?

One example is the accusation I was shaming

Your assertion is based on your assumption, unless your assertion is based on nothing at all.

Wrong again on all counts. It is based on the actions of WILL and reasoning.
To be clear, I am not defending the school. School personnel are capable of making mistakes or screwing up. I think more facts need to be revealed.

 

[Metaphor]

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

Have you tried telling that to the victim?

Begging the question again. You mean: the complainant.

Yes, the complainant and the school itself. Do you think school administrators want to spend their time having to write personal letters to the parents of the students for no good reason?

You were wrong to call the complainant 'the victim'. When you did so, you were begging the question.

You were wrong to call the boys 'bullies'. When you did so, you were begging the question.

Now, as for the motivations of the school administrators: I don't know what they are.

Could they sincerely believe that mispronouning is a violation of Title IX and that an investigation was justified? I don't know. Did they handle the process of informing the parents as well as they could have? I sincerely doubt it.

Evidently you believe 'there's no smoke without fire', or 'guilty until proven innocent'. I do not believe that and nor should you.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether an investigation offends my sensibilities is not what could make an investigation part of the punishment.

Then what could?

The motivations behind the investigation, and the manner in which the investigation is handled.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.

Okay. You think it's unreasonable to assume that a 13 year old would be distressed by being investigated for sexual harassment. I get it.

Nope, that is not what I wrote. You used your imagination "to know he is probably very stressed and anxious". You cannot possibly know what level of stress and anxiety he is experiencing.

I know it is above zero.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.

Oy gevalt. So, everybody in the world is a bully when they try to persuade others using facts.

We are discussing a specific situation, not a general rule. When one airs a private matter that does not involve the public and reveals only some of the facts in order to get the public to help persuade the school to change its mind, it is a form of bullying.

I disagree that it is a form of bullying.

Moreover, WILL and the parents are threatening to sue the school if they do not relent (source: Parents threaten to sue middle school )

I would too.

So it is reasonable conclusion that WILL is trying to bully the school.

No, it is not. Suing people who have wronged you does not make you a bully.

You think I am ignorant to assume the WILL lawyers know something about public sentiment, and that I am ignorant when I speculate that more parents would be on the side of the accused if they knew the 'sexual harassment' charges were for 'mispronouning', than if they were in the dark about what the 'sexual harassment' charges were for.

No. I think you have no idea what these situations are like in the USA or how our public schools operate. But your mischaracterizations are duly noted.

I haven't mischaracterised anything or anyone. I said more parents would be on the side of someone accused of 'sexual harassment' if they knew it was for 'mispronouning' than if they were in the dark about what it was about. My opinion could be wrong but it's not a mischaracterisation.

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

Good for you. If your description of the situation is completely accurate, I agree.

I don't know if it's accurate. I do know that was the only named violation in the original letter to the parents. If there are additional charges, I would say the school has already mishandled the investigation.

I don't believe they stain me.

You are mistake

What hysterical accusations have I made?

One example is the accusation I was shaming

I don't see that the adjective 'hysterical' is warranted, even if I were mistaken.

Your assertion is based on your assumption, unless your assertion is based on nothing at all.

Wrong again on all counts. It is based on the actions of WILL and reasoning.

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

 

[laughing dog]

The motivations behind the investigation, and the manner in which the investigation is handled.

And it this particular situation?

I know it is above zero.

Which is not saying much at all.

I disagree that it is a form of bullying.

Moreover, WILL and the parents are threatening to sue the school if they do not relent (source: Parents threaten to sue middle school )

I would too.

So it is reasonable conclusion that WILL is trying to bully the school.

No, it is not. Suing people who have wronged you does not make you a bully.

Threatening to sue in order to get something you want is a form of bullying, It is delusional to claim otherwise.

I haven't mischaracterised anything or anyone. I said more parents would be on the side of someone accused of 'sexual harassment' if they knew it was for 'mispronouning' than if they were in the dark about what it was about. My opinion could be wrong but it's not a mischaracterisation.

You mischaracterized what I thought.

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

Good for you. If your description of the situation is completely accurate, I agree.

I don't know if it's accurate. I do know that was the only named violation in the original letter to the parents. If there are additional charges, I would say the school has already mishandled the investigation.

Since the charge included other behavior, there is something else.

I don't believe they stain me.

You are mistake

What hysterical accusations have I made?

One example is the accusation I was shaming

I don't see that the adjective 'hysterical' is warranted, even if I were mistaken.

Hysterical people rarely see their hysteria.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

A conclusion drawn from facts in evidence is not an assumption. Despite your attempts to mutilate the English language, words have meaning.

 

[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.

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.

It is your job to evidence assertions you make.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished

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

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

I don't know if you understand how the internet works, but since the names of one of the parents has been disclosed publically, it follows that the identity of the son in question would be easy to discover. I won't dox anybody involved but I can assure you, there would be discussion boards on the internet revealing all the information if you searched for it and wanted it.

I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. Especially when you refuse to understand or accept.

I do understand how the internet works. Too bad the parent outed themself.

I suppose it is.

I also understand how college admissions in the US works.

I know that colleges have rescinded offers previously made, based on things they found on the internet.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether an investigation offends my sensibilities is not what could make an investigation part of the punishment.

Then what could?

The motivations behind the investigation, and the manner in which the investigation is handled.

No. It is negative because putting 13 year olds through stress and anxiety for no good reason is a negative thing to do.

But you don't know if there is a good reason or not. Nor do you know if those boys are going through a lot of stress and anxiety. Although, the publicizing of it probably did add in some stress or anxiety.

If the circumstances are as alleged - that a teenage girl was referred to as 'she' - then that is no good reason.

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

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

"To know"? Projection is really making an assumption.

Okay. You think it's unreasonable to assume that a 13 year old would be distressed by being investigated for sexual harassment. I get it.

Nope, that is not what I wrote. You used your imagination "to know he is probably very stressed and anxious". You cannot possibly know what level of stress and anxiety he is experiencing.

I know it is above zero.

No, unless you think 'airing facts' is automatically 'bullying'.

First, they are only airing some of the facts - the ones favorable to their position. Second, airing the facts to get the some people on their side to exert pressure is bullying.

Oy gevalt. So, everybody in the world is a bully when they try to persuade others using facts.

We are discussing a specific situation, not a general rule. When one airs a private matter that does not involve the public and reveals only some of the facts in order to get the public to help persuade the school to change its mind, it is a form of bullying.

I disagree that it is a form of bullying.

Moreover, WILL and the parents are threatening to sue the school if they do not relent (source: Parents threaten to sue middle school )

I would too.

So it is reasonable conclusion that WILL is trying to bully the school.

No, it is not. Suing people who have wronged you does not make you a bully.

You think I am ignorant to assume the WILL lawyers know something about public sentiment, and that I am ignorant when I speculate that more parents would be on the side of the accused if they knew the 'sexual harassment' charges were for 'mispronouning', than if they were in the dark about what the 'sexual harassment' charges were for.

No. I think you have no idea what these situations are like in the USA or how our public schools operate. But your mischaracterizations are duly noted.

I haven't mischaracterised anything or anyone. I said more parents would be on the side of someone accused of 'sexual harassment' if they knew it was for 'mispronouning' than if they were in the dark about what it was about. My opinion could be wrong but it's not a mischaracterisation.

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

Good for you. If your description of the situation is completely accurate, I agree.

I don't know if it's accurate. I do know that was the only named violation in the original letter to the parents. If there are additional charges, I would say the school has already mishandled the investigation.

I don't believe they stain me.

You are mistake

What hysterical accusations have I made?

One example is the accusation I was shaming

I don't see that the adjective 'hysterical' is warranted, even if I were mistaken.

Your assertion is based on your assumption, unless your assertion is based on nothing at all.

Wrong again on all counts. It is based on the actions of WILL and reasoning.

You made an inference about WILL's motivations. That inference is an assumption.

Yes, your assumption about their motivations (to intimidate) is based on their actions.

A conclusion drawn from facts in evidence is not an assumption. Despite your attempts to mutilate the English language, words have meaning.

There is no fact in evidence that the WILL lawyers wanted to 'intimidate' the school district.

 

[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.

No. When you make an assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I provided the text of Title IX.

Yes, you provided some text.

Your inability to understand it is not my problem

I understand the text. I don't understand how you think it supports your argument.

nor is it my job to look for cases of Title IX violations.

It is your job to evidence assertions you make.

You are asserting that the three boys are being punished

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

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

I don't know if you understand how the internet works, but since the names of one of the parents has been disclosed publically, it follows that the identity of the son in question would be easy to discover. I won't dox anybody involved but I can assure you, there would be discussion boards on the internet revealing all the information if you searched for it and wanted it.

I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. Especially when you refuse to understand or accept.

I do understand how the internet works. Too bad the parent outed themself.

I suppose it is.

I also understand how college admissions in the US works.

I know that colleges have rescinded offers previously made, based on things they found on the internet.

But not minor offenses committed in middle school.