"sexual harassment" is a very broad and subjective term. I've heard people describe walking into the same room as "sexual harassment" - extreme example, but it makes the point. What's mysterious is: what did he actually do?

That's none of your business. How people "describe" sexual harassment in casual conversation, is not how sexual harassment is judged against policies, rules, and in common-sense consideration when evaluating punishment for making choices that violated another person's boundaries.

Frankly: if the dynamic between two individuals is as such, that for one to walk into a room has been plainly stated to violate the imposed boundaries of another, THAT is harassment. Textbook. Harassment. That's what restraining orders are for.

If that room were--say--the ladies' restroom, then yes, I can very much imagine a situation where such a thing were very clearly sexual harassment.

My husband uses ladies restrooms regularly, because that's where the baby change tables are.

The other reason for a man to use ladies restroom is to help his small daughter use it.

I can't believe I have to explain this...

I didn't say there was no reason a man should go into a ladies room. I said that it's easy to imagine a situation in which a man entering a ladies room would very definitely be sexual harassment. Like, you know, chasing after a specific woman.

Given that this whole thread started with you nitpicking my example, I don't think you get to complain when someone nitpicks your example.

What is the definition of sexual harassment in place in this context? Is it explicitly written and, if it is, how much is left to individual discretion? That is one example of what is mysterious here.

I think the parent post seeks trial by mob.