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.

 

[laughing dog]

I care about people forcing me to utter things I don't believe, or forbidding me from uttering things I do.

You live in Australia, not Wisconsin. No one is forcing you to do anything, but that did not stop your OP or mischaracterizations of the situation.

I am simply explaining why a blanket ban of words, even words usually considered offensive, is a bad policy.

Your explanation lacks relevance because it is a special case.

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

 

[Toni]

"Gender conform all you like" is not about you personally. It's an expression that I don't care what other people do with respect to 'gender conformity'.

Your statement is more about you not caring about other people and your willingness to use them to spout your own bigotry.

I care about many people. I am not a psychopath.

Now, as I said, I am not interested in other people's assessment of their own personality (their "gender identity"). To that statement I will add: neither am I interested in your assessment of my personality.

Nor is the rest of the world interested in your assessment of a 13 year old’s sexuality or their perception of their sexuality.

What on earth are you talking about? "Sexuality"?

Yet here you are, affirming the right of three other 13 year olds you don’t know to harass them

I did not condone harassment. However, you condone the authoritarian harassment and punishment of people for 'mispronouning'. Indeed, you don't even seem to be interested in the investigation. The accusation is the investigation.

and talking about how horrible it is for the school to expect those boys to behave decently towards a child you don’t know but whole heartedly disapprove of.

I believe the school is mistaken to believe 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation. I also believe that it is absolutely indecent of you or anyone else to force me to perceive someone in a certain way and to force me to say things that are a denial of reality.

What a bill to climb and die upon.

I'm not dead Toni, and unless advocating the freedom of speech becomes a capital crime in Australia, I don't expect to die on this hill either.

I'm so sorry that you are still either unwilling to read links of what is included in Title IX or to understand them. Most intelligent adults are able to do so unless their own prejudices block their vision.

 

[Metaphor]

I care about people forcing me to utter things I don't believe, or forbidding me from uttering things I do.

You live in Australia, not Wisconsin. No one is forcing you to do anything, but that did not stop your OP or mischaracterizations of the situation.

Of course they are. This middle school in Wisconsin isn't, but gender ideology has pervaded multiple institutions, including the Australian government. I am forbidden from misgendering someone in public, under punishment of the Australian government.

I am simply explaining why a blanket ban of words, even words usually considered offensive, is a bad policy.

Your explanation lacks relevance because it is a special case.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

What religion or rites am I asking people to follow? Name them.

 

[Metaphor]

"Gender conform all you like" is not about you personally. It's an expression that I don't care what other people do with respect to 'gender conformity'.

Your statement is more about you not caring about other people and your willingness to use them to spout your own bigotry.

I care about many people. I am not a psychopath.

Now, as I said, I am not interested in other people's assessment of their own personality (their "gender identity"). To that statement I will add: neither am I interested in your assessment of my personality.

Nor is the rest of the world interested in your assessment of a 13 year old’s sexuality or their perception of their sexuality.

What on earth are you talking about? "Sexuality"?

Yet here you are, affirming the right of three other 13 year olds you don’t know to harass them

I did not condone harassment. However, you condone the authoritarian harassment and punishment of people for 'mispronouning'. Indeed, you don't even seem to be interested in the investigation. The accusation is the investigation.

and talking about how horrible it is for the school to expect those boys to behave decently towards a child you don’t know but whole heartedly disapprove of.

I believe the school is mistaken to believe 'mispronouning' is a Title IX violation. I also believe that it is absolutely indecent of you or anyone else to force me to perceive someone in a certain way and to force me to say things that are a denial of reality.

What a bill to climb and die upon.

I'm not dead Toni, and unless advocating the freedom of speech becomes a capital crime in Australia, I don't expect to die on this hill either.

I'm so sorry that you are still either unwilling to read links of what is included in Title IX or to understand them. Most intelligent adults are able to do so unless their own prejudices block their vision.

Title IX does not mention gender identity anywhere.

I did not condone harassment.

I do not believe in your religion and I believe it is indecent of you to suggest I am morally faulty for my lack of belief.

 

[Toni]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable.

Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance.

www2.ed.gov

A recipient institution that receives Department funds must operate its education program or activity in a nondiscriminatory manner free of discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics; sex-based harassment, which encompasses sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence; treatment of pregnant and parenting students; treatment of LGBTQI+ students; discipline; single-sex education; and employment. Also, no recipient or other person may intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by Title IX or its implementing regulations, or because the individual has made a report or complaint, testified, assisted, or participated or refused to participate in a proceeding under Title IX. For a recipient to retaliate in any way is considered a violation of Title IX. The Department’s Title IX regulations (Volume 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 106) provide additional information about the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title IX.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

 

[Toni]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

Lol.
No.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course they are. This middle school in Wisconsin isn't, but gender ideology has pervaded multiple institutions, including the Australian government. I am forbidden from misgendering someone in public, under punishment of the Australian government.

Why are you babbling about "gender ideology"? We literally do not know what the actual facts are in this situation. Yet, you zoom into one of your "bete noires" that you imagine (yes, imagine) is occuring on a different continent.

Your problems with Australian law have nothing whatsoever to do with 3 middle school boys in middle school in Wisconsin.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

What religion or rites am I asking people to follow? Name them.

How about anti-gender ideology for starters? Or freedom to insult to others for no reason?

 

[Metaphor]

I care about people forcing me to utter things I don't believe, or forbidding me from uttering things I do.

You live in Australia, not Wisconsin. No one is forcing you to do anything, but that did not stop your OP or mischaracterizations of the situation.

Of course they are. This middle school in Wisconsin isn't, but gender ideology has pervaded multiple institutions, including the Australian government. I am forbidden from misgendering someone in public, under punishment of the Australian government.

Which has nothing whatsoever do with any incident at a middle school in a different continent.

Your problems with Australian law have nothing whatsoever to do with 3 middle school boys in Wisconsin. Really, get a grip.

Really, get a clue.

Authoritarian gender ideology is the source of both.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

No, it's not a special case. Interactions with friends are not "special". They are everyday.

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

What religion or rites am I asking people to follow? Name them.

How about anti-gender ideology for starters? Or freedom to insult to others for no reason?

What am I asking you or anyone to do, specifically? Name it.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

Which has nothing whatsoever do with any incident at a middle school in a different continent.

Your problems with Australian law have nothing whatsoever to do with 3 middle school boys in Wisconsin. Really, get a grip.

Really, get a clue.

Authoritarian gender ideology is the source of both.

Your imagination is running wild again. We don't know the facts in this case.

But even if your imagination turns out to be accurate, nothing and no one in this Wisconsin school district is asking or forcing you to say or do anything. So ,if your worry is about being forced to say something or be forbidden to say something, why the OP about a situation that has absolutely no influence on your fears?

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

No, it's not a special case. Interactions with friends are not "special". They are everyday.

In comparison to the myriad of daily interactions, they are special case.

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

What religion or rites am I asking people to follow? Name them.

How about anti-gender ideology for starters? Or freedom to insult to others for no reason?

What am I asking you or anyone to do, specifically? Name it.

Why? You make the same claims about others without any specification whatsoever.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

Which has nothing whatsoever do with any incident at a middle school in a different continent.

Your problems with Australian law have nothing whatsoever to do with 3 middle school boys in Wisconsin. Really, get a grip.

Really, get a clue.

Authoritarian gender ideology is the source of both.

Your imagination is running wild again. We don't know the facts in this case.

But even if your imagination turns out to be accurate, nothing and no one in this Wisconsin school district is asking or forcing you to say or do anything. So ,if your worry is about being forced to say something or be forbidden to say something, why the OP about a situation that has absolutely no influence on your fears?

An example of authoritarian gender ideology is the point of the OP.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

No, it's not a special case. Interactions with friends are not "special". They are everyday.

In comparison to the myriad of daily interactions, they are special case.

I strongly suspect that the reason for those places that have rules about speech is that they refuse to participate in your religion and your rites, not despotism.

I do not force anybody to participate in my beliefs or rites.

You are making tacit arguments that people should follow your religion or rites. Otherwise your OPs on this subject really have no purpose. h

What religion or rites am I asking people to follow? Name them.

How about anti-gender ideology for starters? Or freedom to insult to others for no reason?

What am I asking you or anyone to do, specifically? Name it.

Why? You make the same claims about others without any specification whatsoever.

I have specified, possibly hundreds of times, what the gender ideologists demand. They demand pronouns, as they did in this case.

But I'll take your answer to mean "I can't think of anything you are demanding of me".

 

[laughing dog]

An example of authoritarian gender ideology is the point of the OP.

Then your OP fails as an example of authoritarian gender ideology because we don't have the actual facts about the case.

Your OP succeeds as an example of bizarre obsession.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

No, it's not a special case. Interactions with friends are not "special". They are everyday.

In comparison to the myriad of daily interactions, they are special case.

I have specified, possibly hundreds of times, what the gender ideologists demand. They demand pronouns, as they did in this case.

You have no idea what they demanded in this case.

But I'll take your answer to mean "I can't think of anything you are demanding of me".

And you would be wrong. You are demanding that these unnamed gender ideologists stop whatever you imagine they are doing.

 

[Metaphor]

An example of authoritarian gender ideology is the point of the OP.

Then your OP fails as an example of authoritarian gender ideology because we don't have the actual facts about the case.

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

Your OP succeeds as an example of bizarre obsession.

It is not a special case. Certain friends do this with each other. You may not have that kind of relationship with anyone but others do.

Of course it is a special case. Most human interaction is not between "certain friends".

No, it's not a special case. Interactions with friends are not "special". They are everyday.

In comparison to the myriad of daily interactions, they are special case.

I have specified, possibly hundreds of times, what the gender ideologists demand. They demand pronouns, as they did in this case.

You have no idea what they demanded in this case.

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it. The Australian government punishes people who do not conform to demanded pronouns. So does Twitter. So do educational institutions across the Anglosphere.

But I'll take your answer to mean "I can't think of anything you are demanding of me".

And you would be wrong. You are demanding that these unnamed gender ideologists stop whatever you imagine they are doing.

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

What makes you think they haven't been investigated?

 

[Toni]

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

I

You certainly have succeeded in calling attention to yourself an a gender ideologist authoritarian. However, you did not need this thread to accomplish that goal. We already knew.

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it.

Sounds exactly like you.

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

You can stop any time now. In fact, I would applaud you.

 

[laughing dog]

An example of authoritarian gender ideology is the point of the OP.

Then your OP fails as an example of authoritarian gender ideology because we don't have the actual facts about the case.

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

Your confidence is cute but unwarranted.

Your OP succeeds as an example of bizarre obsession.

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it. The Australian government punishes people who do not conform to demanded pronouns. So does Twitter. So do educational institutions across the Anglosphere.

This thread is about a case in a middle school in Wisconsin, yet you continue to prattle on about Australia . You have no evidence to support your claims about certain "gender ideologists" influence on this school.

But I'll take your answer to mean "I can't think of anything you are demanding of me".

And you would be wrong. You are demanding that these unnamed gender ideologists stop whatever you imagine they are doing.

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

You demand people practice your religion.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't really care what you believe. But once more, with gusto, in case you might possibly be able to read with comprehension without your bigotry clouding your vision or understanding, I'm linking it again for you.

What is truly indecent is your defense of 3 individuals who attempted to bully and intimidate someone of whom you disapprove, without actually knowing them at all. Indecent and despicable

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

What makes you think they haven't been investigated?

The article in the OP.

 

[Metaphor]

An example of authoritarian gender ideology is the point of the OP.

Then your OP fails as an example of authoritarian gender ideology because we don't have the actual facts about the case.

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

Your confidence is cute but unwarranted.

Your OP succeeds as an example of bizarre obsession.

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it. The Australian government punishes people who do not conform to demanded pronouns. So does Twitter. So do educational institutions across the Anglosphere.

This thread is about a case in a middle school in Wisconsin, yet you continue to prattle on about Australia .

I see you've gotten to the accusations of prattling stage of your argument.

The OP is an example of the effects of gender ideology. I am affected by gender ideology.

You have no evidence to support your claims about certain "gender ideologists" influence on this school.

But I'll take your answer to mean "I can't think of anything you are demanding of me".

And you would be wrong. You are demanding that these unnamed gender ideologists stop whatever you imagine they are doing.

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

You demand people practice your religion.

That is a falsehood. I have no rites, rituals, or beliefs that I want others to practise or believe.

 

[Metaphor]

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

I

You certainly have succeeded in calling attention to yourself an a gender ideologist authoritarian. However, you did not need this thread to accomplish that goal. We already knew.

What am I demanding of others?

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it.

Sounds exactly like you.

Really? I demand pronouns? Pray tell, when and where did I make this demand?

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

You can stop any time now. In fact, I would applaud you.

Here's a deal: you stop forcing your religion on me, and I will continue to never have forced anything on you.

 

[Toni]

That has not stopped posters from assuming guilt. However, despite your unsolicited assessment, the OP has not failed. I wanted to call attention to the gender ideologist authoritarianism, and I did.

I

You certainly have succeeded in calling attention to yourself an a gender ideologist authoritarian. However, you did not need this thread to accomplish that goal. We already knew.

What am I demanding of others?

Gender ideologists demand pronouns. Of this, there can be no doubt. They say it and their fellow travelers and co-conspirators endorse it.

Sounds exactly like you.

Really? I demand pronouns? Pray tell, when and where did I make this demand?

I demand they leave people alone and do not persecute people for not practising their religion.

You can stop any time now. In fact, I would applaud you.

Here's a deal: you stop forcing your religion on me, and I will continue to never have forced anything on you.

Of course you are making demands! You are demanding that people be allowed to use whatever pronouns they believe apply to the person before them, based on their perception of what gender or sex they were assigned at birth. You call out those who do not subscribe to your belief system as attempting to force 'their religion' on you.

I think I can safely say that many of us realize that you are only interested in your point of view and what makes you, personally, feel safe and secure. You do not care about the child who was being tormented by those other boys. You care about the three accused boys only because they are accused of something you would have done yourself. The other child does not concern you at all.