eggynack
@eggynack.bsky.social
Teacher of some kind. Trans woman of some other kind. Mathematically inclined. She/her.
Ari has yet to provide a meaningful answer to any of this, incidentally. Maybe you can do better.
November 10, 2025 at 6:12 AM
Ari has yet to provide a meaningful answer to any of this, incidentally. Maybe you can do better.
For example, they talk about how harassment must be disruptive in some substantial way, and that disruption is baked into the policy. It seems like it was written very intentionally to abide by the exact rulings that FIRE claims it's in violation of.
November 10, 2025 at 6:12 AM
For example, they talk about how harassment must be disruptive in some substantial way, and that disruption is baked into the policy. It seems like it was written very intentionally to abide by the exact rulings that FIRE claims it's in violation of.
This is actually a broader issue too. The brief makes a big deal about the way that caselaw establishes if a given action can be prohibited without running afoul of the first amendment, and these things, supposedly absent from the policy, are written right there.
November 10, 2025 at 6:11 AM
This is actually a broader issue too. The brief makes a big deal about the way that caselaw establishes if a given action can be prohibited without running afoul of the first amendment, and these things, supposedly absent from the policy, are written right there.
It literally says, in black and white, that harassment must be directed at a student or staff by definition. In other words, the resolution to this supposed undirected misgendering would, within this policy, be that it is not against these rules. The objection by FIRE just makes literally no sense.
November 10, 2025 at 6:09 AM
It literally says, in black and white, that harassment must be directed at a student or staff by definition. In other words, the resolution to this supposed undirected misgendering would, within this policy, be that it is not against these rules. The objection by FIRE just makes literally no sense.
It might not be obvious what the problem with that is, but it becomes obvious once you see the policies in question. Here's the main one, policy 5517.
November 10, 2025 at 6:08 AM
It might not be obvious what the problem with that is, but it becomes obvious once you see the policies in question. Here's the main one, policy 5517.
That's not even the main issue, however. The main issue is that the objection is fundamentally incoherent. This court case does not concern a policy that says, "Misgendering is not allowed." It concerns a generic harassment policy, and the school said misgendering would qualify.
November 10, 2025 at 6:06 AM
That's not even the main issue, however. The main issue is that the objection is fundamentally incoherent. This court case does not concern a policy that says, "Misgendering is not allowed." It concerns a generic harassment policy, and the school said misgendering would qualify.
Quite the opposite, in fact, one of the provided citations relevant to this notion of "targeting" seems to very straightforwardly indicate that misgendering is, in fact, necessarily targeted.
November 10, 2025 at 6:05 AM
Quite the opposite, in fact, one of the provided citations relevant to this notion of "targeting" seems to very straightforwardly indicate that misgendering is, in fact, necessarily targeted.
None. It's nonetheless trivial to find issues with their arguments. Like, you're presumably talking about the "targeting" thing, yeah? That's the main thing I'm talking about too. Which, just at the outset, the brief does not actually justify this supposedly narrow definition of the term.
November 10, 2025 at 6:03 AM
None. It's nonetheless trivial to find issues with their arguments. Like, you're presumably talking about the "targeting" thing, yeah? That's the main thing I'm talking about too. Which, just at the outset, the brief does not actually justify this supposedly narrow definition of the term.
Having read the brief in its entirety, it's a bunch of incoherent nonsense. The actual decision is coherent. It argues that misgendering isn't all that bad so restricting it is bad. But FIRE doesn't want to make that argument, so it strings together a bunch of inaccurate garbage.
November 10, 2025 at 3:31 AM
Having read the brief in its entirety, it's a bunch of incoherent nonsense. The actual decision is coherent. It argues that misgendering isn't all that bad so restricting it is bad. But FIRE doesn't want to make that argument, so it strings together a bunch of inaccurate garbage.
But then you get to the biggest issue, which is that this is all about a generic harassment policy, and that policy explicitly says that harassment is directed by definition. So, Ari is full of shit, is the point.
November 10, 2025 at 3:29 AM
But then you get to the biggest issue, which is that this is all about a generic harassment policy, and that policy explicitly says that harassment is directed by definition. So, Ari is full of shit, is the point.
Ari keeps insisting on some private legal definition of "targeting" which he leaves undefined, but, and here's the second thing, one of the few in-brief citations describes a situation without targeting as one without identifying a particular person. Which misgendering obviously does.
November 10, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Ari keeps insisting on some private legal definition of "targeting" which he leaves undefined, but, and here's the second thing, one of the few in-brief citations describes a situation without targeting as one without identifying a particular person. Which misgendering obviously does.
I've read the brief. It's full of misrepresentations and nonsense. It argues, for example, that this anti-misgendering policy is distinct from other cases because it's "untargeted". This despite the fact that, right at the outset, misgendering is targeted practically by definition.
November 10, 2025 at 3:26 AM
I've read the brief. It's full of misrepresentations and nonsense. It argues, for example, that this anti-misgendering policy is distinct from other cases because it's "untargeted". This despite the fact that, right at the outset, misgendering is targeted practically by definition.
If we can theoretically argue that some instance of misgendering is "untargeted" for whatever reason, then the actual resolution to that situation is that it wouldn't qualify as harassment within the policy in the first place.
November 10, 2025 at 3:23 AM
If we can theoretically argue that some instance of misgendering is "untargeted" for whatever reason, then the actual resolution to that situation is that it wouldn't qualify as harassment within the policy in the first place.
FIRE is lying, is the thing. The lawsuit concerns a bunch of generic anti-harassment policies, and is in objection to the idea that misgendering would be covered by those existing policies. Which is relevant because said policies explicitly state that harassment is directed by definition.
November 10, 2025 at 3:22 AM
FIRE is lying, is the thing. The lawsuit concerns a bunch of generic anti-harassment policies, and is in objection to the idea that misgendering would be covered by those existing policies. Which is relevant because said policies explicitly state that harassment is directed by definition.
Dang, didn't even think of that aspect. Cause Tinker, like a lot of Warren court era stuff, was since substantially narrowed, yeah? And it is indeed all super vague. I noted that the targeting thing seems nonsensical, for example, but it's not like they substantially define the concept.
November 9, 2025 at 6:26 AM
Dang, didn't even think of that aspect. Cause Tinker, like a lot of Warren court era stuff, was since substantially narrowed, yeah? And it is indeed all super vague. I noted that the targeting thing seems nonsensical, for example, but it's not like they substantially define the concept.
Which is relevant here particularly because said harassment policy very explicitly defines harassment as a set of particular actions that are directed at a student or teacher. So, the resolution to some misgendering being "untargeted" would be that it simply doesn't qualify within the policy.
November 9, 2025 at 3:40 AM
Which is relevant here particularly because said harassment policy very explicitly defines harassment as a set of particular actions that are directed at a student or teacher. So, the resolution to some misgendering being "untargeted" would be that it simply doesn't qualify within the policy.
That said, the argument is actually substantially stupider than that. The court case isn't concerning some explicit policy that's like, "Misgendering is always against the rules." It's about a more generic harassment policy, and the school said misgendering qualifies.
November 9, 2025 at 3:39 AM
That said, the argument is actually substantially stupider than that. The court case isn't concerning some explicit policy that's like, "Misgendering is always against the rules." It's about a more generic harassment policy, and the school said misgendering qualifies.
Ari's been arguing elsewhere that you can have someone say, "That trans girl that isn't in this conversation is a boy," and, as the girl in question isn't in the conversation, it doesn't qualify as "targeted". This doesn't seem like a particularly good argument, and hasn't really been justified.
November 9, 2025 at 3:37 AM
Ari's been arguing elsewhere that you can have someone say, "That trans girl that isn't in this conversation is a boy," and, as the girl in question isn't in the conversation, it doesn't qualify as "targeted". This doesn't seem like a particularly good argument, and hasn't really been justified.
FIRE tries to make of this some grander claim about free speech protection, but it really just doesn't make much sense. The only realistic way to object to what was happening is if you simply think that transphobia, at least of this form, should be excluded from our understanding of harassment.
November 9, 2025 at 1:22 AM
FIRE tries to make of this some grander claim about free speech protection, but it really just doesn't make much sense. The only realistic way to object to what was happening is if you simply think that transphobia, at least of this form, should be excluded from our understanding of harassment.
Such is the dream, that being to endlessly nitpick weird legal arguments. Anyways, yeah, the central thing here is that the actual decision, the one striking down this application of these policies, is entirely coherent and straightforward. That being, misgendering isn't a big deal.
November 9, 2025 at 1:20 AM
Such is the dream, that being to endlessly nitpick weird legal arguments. Anyways, yeah, the central thing here is that the actual decision, the one striking down this application of these policies, is entirely coherent and straightforward. That being, misgendering isn't a big deal.
Lol nope. And he kept asking people to read his stupid brief too. Wild.
November 9, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Lol nope. And he kept asking people to read his stupid brief too. Wild.
Yeah, but the brief mostly just says, "It's important that regulated speech be targeted and misgendering is untargeted." It does little to justify this and what little it references seems to actively oppose their claims.
November 8, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Yeah, but the brief mostly just says, "It's important that regulated speech be targeted and misgendering is untargeted." It does little to justify this and what little it references seems to actively oppose their claims.
In any case, as I've been noting, this seems irrelevant. The policy being objected to explicitly notes that any behavior it regulates is definitionally directed at some party. This would seem to map very closely to it being "targeted", so the distinction is already in the rules.
November 8, 2025 at 10:58 PM
In any case, as I've been noting, this seems irrelevant. The policy being objected to explicitly notes that any behavior it regulates is definitionally directed at some party. This would seem to map very closely to it being "targeted", so the distinction is already in the rules.
Kinda? I've only been able to find the text within the decision itself, particularly because there isn't actually a misgendering specific policy. Here's the decision in question, with the pertinent section being on the bottom of page five. www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...
www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov
November 8, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Kinda? I've only been able to find the text within the decision itself, particularly because there isn't actually a misgendering specific policy. Here's the decision in question, with the pertinent section being on the bottom of page five. www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...
The brief doesn't do much to ground this alternate definition in caselaw, and, in fact, seems to do the exact opposite. Here's a case they cite to elaborate on this "targeting" standard.
November 8, 2025 at 10:55 PM
The brief doesn't do much to ground this alternate definition in caselaw, and, in fact, seems to do the exact opposite. Here's a case they cite to elaborate on this "targeting" standard.