I have been in perfectly reasonable conversations within a group where a woman has taken a statement so wildly out of context that frivolous reports are filed
Why do you think you have the right to decide whether someone else should find a comment inappropriate or not?
Subjectivity versus objectivity is the crux of the issue with standards of behaviour.
I understand a common idea nowadays is the subjective standard of any group member (victim) is considered paramount in assessing conduct. But this descends into meaninglessness because all people tolerate others' conduct at differing levels.
This is why the common law has long assessed standards of behaviour using the "reasonable person" as a hypothetical objective measure of appropriate conduct in the given circumstances.[1]
The commenter may not have the right to decide appropriate behaviour, but at some point we must ask "would the reasonable person in X situation presented with Y conduct be harmed?".
Because when it's clearly frivolous and results in no action by management (who deem it a non-issue), all it does is create a work environment where people aren't comfortable talking about ANYTHING. I'm not talking about clearly inappropriate speech in the workplace, I'm talking about normal conversation that is twisted and misconstrued to attack others. I have witnessed this happen multiple times and it is baffling.
Why do you think you have the right to decide whether someone else should find a comment inappropriate or not?