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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Here it be.

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.

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.

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.