iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

The author of the book "Irreversible Damage". Here, have a picture.

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 10/05/2026

Like, you talk about how Israel hadn't killed as many Palestinians as vice versa, and, if we're talking about the time prior to October 7th adding it all up, no? Like, here's a graph.

292

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 05/01/2026

Hell, you keep narrowing in on the punishment thing, so here's the lead in to that. The professor openly admitting to all the events as described.

000

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 05/01/2026

What are you talking about? I'm looking at the study right now. It gives the student's account and then has nothing from the professor's perspective. Here's the first question, which opens with a note about assuming the student is being truthful.

100

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

He's bullshitting. The lawsuit concerns an already existing piece of harassment policy, with the objection being to the idea that misgendering can fall under that policy. Here's one of the main pieces of said policy, with the two others being a cyberbullying thing and a general school policy.

100

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

Not even just the context. The law itself. He never quotes it. FIRE never quotes it. Here, for your delight, is one of the main parts of the policy under consideration.

120

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

I'm really not sure where you're getting that reading of the end, by the way. This is the part I'm talking about.

100

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

Right, this makes no sense as an objection. Here, for reference, is one of the central policies at issue. Note that it being directed is literally in the definition. If misgendering is undirected, somehow, it simply wouldn't qualify.

200

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

For reference, here is one of the three major policies that the lawsuit took issue with. What, precisely, is overbroad about this?

200

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

Yeah, he won't do that. He evidently muted me for pointing out the various clear flaws in his argument. Like, you may or may not recall that I pointed to a particular definition of harassment when he said that's a thing that matters in these cases. Y'know, this one over here.

110

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

Right, sure. So what you're saying is that, if the definition of harassment is something like the following, then, even if the specific behavior in question is something like misgendering, then that's probably fine. Right? This behavior in a school is entirely actionable.

100

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 24/11/2025

Interesting claim, that harassment needs definition. What do you think of the following as a definition of harassment in a school context? Do you think it would be reasonable if misgendering were to sometimes fall under said definition?

150

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 10/11/2025

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.

120

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 10/11/2025

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.

110

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

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.

181

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

There's also a second part where they move beyond simply pointing out that the argument has been made and outright appear to buy into the reasoning. I guess it's at least a bit more self-consistent?

030

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

Notably, the brief itself has a divergence into this topic right near the end, one that seems to imply that they would be cool with the n word thing. Here's some of that.

150

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

Actually decided to go deeper, cause I was curious what the actual policies were that they were objecting to, and I've come to the conclusion that this makes even less sense than I thought.

200

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

In other words, the targeting element is literally baked into the text, as is the nature of the action in question. They evidently clarified later the policy later by saying the following, which I'll just snip cause there's too much text.

1140

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

Alrighty, I'm aware it doesn't give the full picture, but I did a search for "target" in the text of the actual decision, and check out this section. It seems to straightforwardly presuppose that misgendering is targeted, but delineates based on the content of the speech.

120

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 08/11/2025

Lol geez I went back to check the phrasing (it's untargeted rather than undirected) and found this. Apparently the idea that this misgendering is untargeted is "undisputed". Guess it doesn't even need justification then.

110

eggynack @eggynack.bsky.social · 07/11/2025

Jeez, no, I hadn't read the 100 odd page brief, but I just did a quick ctrl+f for "harassment", and I found this. So apparently it's debatable whether misgendering a trans student is appropriate, and picking one side over the other on this is wrong.

150