As I said, ridiculous.
No, probably not. I painted in broad strokes, but the situation is more murky. I don't know of any situations where legal action for this kind of behavior has come from men doing it to men.
> But if I sent it back to Linus, it’s sexual harassment?
Possibly. That may depend on the state? I'm not terribly familiar with same-sex sexual harassment issues, I'm afraid. Need to re-read up on it, I guess.
If one employee repeatedly causes offense or discomfort to another, especially on the basis of protected categories like race, religion, or sexual preference, and the management is aware of the offense but doesn't do anything about it, the company is opening itself to a lawsuit.
If management became aware of the remarks above, and they were within a workplace context (the above ones were out of the workplace), management would have to do something. They are making crude sexual references and could reasonably be regarded as offensive.
It does not matter if you think it is ridiculous, although it would be smart to reflect that the reason we have these laws is because, historically, there has been real and pervasive harassment.
There are some things that might (for instance, a reference that had a widely accepted meaning in general usage but also a specific use in the context of a particular group might be less appropriate to use to a member of that group where the context might be ambiguous enough to support both the group-specific and the more general use, while being perfectly fine otherwise), but I don't really see that being the case for the particular email in question.
So it is okay to swear at men but not at women? Why in this context?
Really, this is ridiculous. Why would something become acceptable/inacceptable simply because of the gender/religion/haircolour/height/taste in music of the recipient?