Although the site you linked is titled "Sexual Harassment", it appears to me to be talking about harassment in general

> Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Even if I am misreading this, I would rather call it "sexist harassment" to make clear that is not itself of a sexual nature.

The very next paragraph:

"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general."

This is what the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission considers "sexual harassment". You may not like these definitions, but this is the government's definition of "sexual harassment".

You can define anything to be anything when you're in the outrage porn business, but unrealistic descriptions meant to stoke emotion don't help to solve actual problems, they just make for more outrage porn.

I'm, personally, strongly inclined to discount the opinions on bullying and harassment and the like offered by someone who uses the phrase "outrage porn" unironically.

You're implying that the US government is in the "outrage porn business".

Not the gov but you.

The paragraph you quoted says "harassment doesn't have to be of sexual nature" and you are using it to support the claim that "sexual harassment doesn't have to be of sexual nature".

And that paragraph is under the title "Sexual Harassment". It is clear to me that when they say "harassment", they mean "sexual harassment". Otherwise, the sentence would not be under that title. You're free to disagree, but your disagreement has no bearing on the laws we operate under. (Assuming you are in the US.)

The exact paragraph you quoted from section on "sexual harassment" is copy-pasted from section on "sex-based discrimination". And it's not law, but some guidance/advice/faq/whatever.

You are overinterpreting this thing.

I think I am interpreting this thing in a straight-forward manner. This is the part of the government responsible for ensuring equal employment opportunities telling the public that it does not limit "sexual harassment" to harassment of a sexual nature.

Interesting. Looking at the kind of things people say in online games, almost every negative comment falls under sexual harassment. Homophobic comments, "you suck", comments about genitalia, neck beards, a comment about the sexual nature for which the person was born from...

About the only type of harassment that do not qualify under sexual harassment is those that insult intelligence, ability to perform a task, and racism.

>almost every negative comment falls under sexual harassment //

This seems like a confusion between using swear/curse words and things being sexual. People swearing often say words that are also used to describe sexual acts by the use is akin to using homophones.

"You wanker!" isn't sexual, for example, unless there's particular context to make it that way.

I understand where you’re coming from, but the same argument was, and is, made when defending the usage of the word “Gay” as a general disparaging adjective. In a way, the people making that argument, and you when making yours, are right in that many or perhaps most people don’t mean anything sexual in using the phrase¹. But this does not mean that it should therefore be OK to call something “Gay” or labeling a person a “Wanker”. Using those words in a disparaging fashion does lead to a normalization and tacit approval of homophobic and sex-shaming attitudes, respectively.

① I once saw someone trying to establish the term and spelling “Ghey” as a non-sexually associated disparaging word.

At the same time, language changes all the time. It didn't mean the same thing when my kids called something "radical" as in my day. Modern culture has a way of burning up useful words, when they become PC unacceptable. Remember when "idiot", "moron" and "retarded" were technical terms with no emotional baggage? No? You were born too late for that.

Its probably different when words that used to be disparaging become less so (wanker, gay). Because there remain a generation that are still offended by them, we should probably lighten up on them especially in mixed company.

> Because there remain a generation that are still offended by them, we should probably lighten up on them

You’re missing the point. That is not the reason. The reason why one shouldn’t use the term “Gay”, even if one doesn’t mean anything actually homophobic by it, is that by using the term, one encourages actual homophobes and reinforces their belief that their hatred and/or fear of homosexuals is normal. You might think that everyone who hears you knows you don’t mean “Gay” as a homophobic slur, but I can assure you ­— you would be wrong.

His wife experienced gender discrimination, not sexual harassment.