Update regarding my previous question about my manager copying my hobbies (Long Description!)

For the third and final time: I agree with the majority of your original post. By virtue of my agreement, I saw no need for additional comment on these aspects.

With good reason, I expressed my concerns with the linking of sexual harassment with sexual orientation. I have already explained my reasoning for this. You conceded that there was no sexual harassment, nor was the manager's sexual orientation of relevance.

If you sincerely see no problem with assuming that a man sexually harassing another man is necessarily gay (or equally that someone sexually harassing someone of a different gender is necessarily heterosexual, notwithstanding that it appears to bear no relevance to Hawk256's situation) then I encourage you to critically analyse your opinion. You might explore, for example, why a heterosexual man might sexually harass a man. Leaving aside the complexities of the perpetrator's prior trauma or other experiences, many potential answers come to mind, including:

1) He believes the victim to be gay and convinced himself that the victim "wants it" e.g. incorrectly assuming that a gay man is indiscriminate in his station, therefore dancing all men, and incorrectly assuming that a gay man is wanting to be sexually active every waking hour of his life.

2) He does not think of the victim as other than heterosexual (e.g. gay or bisexual) but views same-sex sexual harassment as a legitimate method of ridiculing someone he does not regard highly.

3) the victim speaks out against persecution of people with protected characteristics, including people who are gay. The prosecutor (rightly or wrongly - it's irrelevant) concludes that the victim must be gay, on the mistaken belief that only gay people challenge persecution of gay people.

Or maybe a man who sexually harassed another man is bisexual...with many possible motivations and mistaken beliefs, long the lines of the above.

Or maybe a man who sexually harassed another man is gay, again with many possible motivations and mistaken beliefs as above.

If you are "not really sure" whether the subtlety makes a difference then perhaps it is better not to say it - in case it does make a difference. If you are speaking from your own experience then bear in mind that other people have different experiences and opinions. Also, it is not only the victim who could be affected by such an assumption - in this instance it is gay men collectively i.e. all those who are being stereotyped. And yes, with the continuing belief of some that sex between men is synonymous with a number of abhorrent sexual offences which I shall not list /yes/ the subtlety can make a significant difference. And holding the belief that society as a whole is not nice is a poor excuse for perpetuating misconceptions. Consider to what extent you would think it insignificant were a stereotype to be uphold, characterizing autistic people.

I really can't go on educating you on this subject. There comes a point where you must take responsibility for challenging your own thinking. I have genuinely tried to help by pointing out flawed reasoning, and to reconcile our differences by acknowledging our different thought processes in working through situations.

Interesting as this all is, I am aware that this is seriously detracting from Hawk256's concerns. I am also at the point of exasperation. I will therefore cease further examination on this thread of sexual harassment themes, stereotyping of gay people or the unwarranted linking same sex sexual harassment with being gay.

For the third and final time: I agree with the majority of your original post. By virtue of my agreement, I saw no need for additional comment on these aspects.

With good reason, I expressed my concerns with the linking of sexual harassment with sexual orientation. I have already explained my reasoning for this. You conceded that there was no sexual harassment, nor was the manager's sexual orientation of relevance.

If you sincerely see no problem with assuming that a man sexually harassing another man is necessarily gay (or equally that someone sexually harassing someone of a different gender is necessarily heterosexual, notwithstanding that it appears to bear no relevance to Hawk256's situation) then I encourage you to critically analyse your opinion. You might explore, for example, why a heterosexual man might sexually harass a man. Leaving aside the complexities of the perpetrator's prior trauma or other experiences, many potential answers come to mind, including:

1) He believes the victim to be gay and convinced himself that the victim "wants it" e.g. incorrectly assuming that a gay man is indiscriminate in his station, therefore dancing all men, and incorrectly assuming that a gay man is wanting to be sexually active every waking hour of his life.

2) He does not think of the victim as other than heterosexual (e.g. gay or bisexual) but views same-sex sexual harassment as a legitimate method of ridiculing someone he does not regard highly.

3) the victim speaks out against persecution of people with protected characteristics, including people who are gay. The prosecutor (rightly or wrongly - it's irrelevant) concludes that the victim must be gay, on the mistaken belief that only gay people challenge persecution of gay people.

Or maybe a man who sexually harassed another man is bisexual...with many possible motivations and mistaken beliefs, long the lines of the above.

Or maybe a man who sexually harassed another man is gay, again with many possible motivations and mistaken beliefs as above.

If you are "not really sure" whether the subtlety makes a difference then perhaps it is better not to say it - in case it does make a difference. If you are speaking from your own experience then bear in mind that other people have different experiences and opinions. Also, it is not only the victim who could be affected by such an assumption - in this instance it is gay men collectively i.e. all those who are being stereotyped. And yes, with the continuing belief of some that sex between men is synonymous with a number of abhorrent sexual offences which I shall not list /yes/ the subtlety can make a significant difference. And holding the belief that society as a whole is not nice is a poor excuse for perpetuating misconceptions. Consider to what extent you would think it insignificant were a stereotype to be uphold, characterizing autistic people.

I really can't go on educating you on this subject. There comes a point where you must take responsibility for challenging your own thinking. I have genuinely tried to help by pointing out flawed reasoning, and to reconcile our differences by acknowledging our different thought processes in working through situations.

Interesting as this all is, I am aware that this is seriously detracting from Hawk256's concerns. I am also at the point of exasperation. I will therefore cease further examination on this thread of sexual harassment themes, stereotyping of gay people or the unwarranted linking same sex sexual harassment with being gay.