what should I do next regarding sexual harassment?

I didn't give you the answer you wanted; therefore, I did not read your post thoroughly.

Sigh.

Kate4justice:

I understand what you're saying, but what about when you take that combined with the retaliation?

What retaliation?  The "manager" complained to you and tried to fish for whether you were the one who reported him, but nobody has actually done anything to you, have they?  Demoted you or fired you or even taken away your computer?

I'd also ask, if you report someone for "sexual harassment" but it turns out your definition of "sexual harassment" is quite wrong, and they fire you, what makes that different from firing you because you were a complainer in general, which would unfortunately be legal for them to do?

Do what you want, but I wouldn't recommend prioritizing feelings of anger and righteous indignation over looking out for #1.

 You said,

"You complain that they've been ineffective before; well, maybe that's because you're tying their hands"

Well, my very first post referred to HR being useless in other situations.  Nothing indicated I have ever had any personal experience with this til now. In all of the many lawsuits in the past I have never "tyed their hands"

Kate4justice:

Well, my very first post referred to HR being useless in other situations.

What makes you "other?"  The fact is that you have no way of knowing the history of HR complaint resolution considering that you are not HR; you are basing that statement upon an assumption; and, to repeat, you aren't "other situations."

Further, this manager person was so " ***  because he was hauled into HR" according to you -- so don't spount a bunch of melodrama about how they aren't doing their job. Contrary to what you'd like to believe, HR responded to your complaint.  Their job is not to transform a work environment to one that meets the approval of Kate4justice. 

Nothing you've posted supports an SH complaint.  Not even your statement about overhearing the man seeing a doctor about an infection in "a sensitive area."  During allergy season eyes get sensitive.  Or do you prefer thinking dirty?

Considering that you've almost met half the total of this thread, I see that my statement about you apparently being one who has this need to argue seems valid.  Employers can just get rid of that type of employee.  Legally.

Again, talk with an attorney.  Someone who will learn more about you too.

I think in a way OP creates her own Catch 22 problem --if she anomously reports a problem via a 3d party line it is unlike the employer is on notice as to the supposed victim and there is no protection  in place re retialation.

The supervisor is unwise to 'fish" for source because if he finds out her may be on notice and thus the protection is triggered?

If management is in dark and merely reassigns "everyone" it might be on safe side?

Cica:

Nothing you've posted supports an SH complaint.  Not even your statement about overhearing the man seeing a doctor about an infection in "a sensitive area."  During allergy season eyes get sensitive.  Or do you prefer thinking dirty?

FYI.  He went into graphic detail describing the body part and procedure. Do you expect me to describe the vulgarity here for your thinking dirty as you say it?

Drew:

The supervisor is unwise to 'fish" for source because if he finds out her may be on notice and thus the protection is triggered?

If management is in dark and merely reassigns "everyone" it might be on safe side?

I sorry, but my english is not good.  Are you asking me questions?

"A sensitive area" v. "graphic detail describing the body part" is a sudden change in descriptive.  I don't get analytical on a message board and pretend to understand what your mind is thinking.

I also don't expect anything of you.  An attorney will.  Talk with an attorney.

But so far, nothing posted supports a case.  It just emphasizes someone refusing an attempt an internal resolution.

Cica:

A sensitive area" v. "graphic detail describing the body part" is a sudden change in descriptive.  I don't get analytical on a message board and pretend to understand what your mind is thinking.

Uhm my first post says he went into graphic detail when he returned from doctors office.

Fantastic. 

Still, it's apparent HR discussed the problem with him.

Nothing you've posted suggests sufficient grounds for a case.