The article specifically calls out harassment on the basis of protected class. But to read this as saying that unwelcome conduct, so long as it is not on the basis of protected class, isn't harassment is not a correct interpretation.

A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?

Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."

> Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."

As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.

Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.