@hawkeye10,
Your lame brain seems incapable of keeping track of the conversation, and also seems to have a penchant for making **** up. It was you who claimed that ". . . anyone who objects to a king being a female is now considered to be a defective, and is ordered to stay quiet, no matter how sound is the argument that a king is by definition a male." There was nothing about that in the titular article. So that's an example of your inability to keep track of the conversation. If you weren't talking about yourself, who were you talking about? Certainly no one in the San Diego case, because none of that "a king is by definition a male" appears in that account.
Then there's your penchant for making **** up. This is what the article said the Superintendant had said: "He added, according to the station, that any students behind threats or harassment will be met with disciplinary action." He definitely did not say that any objection to a female being named king will be considered hate speech. He didn't say that would be the subject of disciplinary action. He said threats and harrassment will be met with disciplinary action. Just as threats and harrassment of a football player would be met with disciplinary action. Just as threats and harrassment as the premiere player of the chess club would be met with disciplinary action.
This is par for the course with you--distortion and outright lies. When reality doesn't conform to
your preconcieved ideas, you just make **** up. You just lie.