وصف حالة
These two cases concern content decisions made by Meta, on Facebook and Instagram, which the Oversight Board intends to address together.
In the first case, a Facebook user in the United States posted a video of a woman confronting a transgender woman for using the women’s bathroom. The post refers to the person being confronted as a man and asks why it is permitted for them to use a women’s bathroom.
In the second case, an Instagram account posted a video of a transgender girl winning a female sports competition in the United States, with some spectators vocally disapproving of the result. The post refers to the athlete as a boy, questioning whether they are female.
Both posts were shared in 2024 and received thousands of views and reactions. They were reported for Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment multiple times, but Meta left both posts up on Facebook and Instagram, respectively. After appealing to Meta against the company’s decisions, two of the users who reported the content then appealed to the Oversight Board.
Following the Board’s selection of these cases, Meta considered both posts under its Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies and concluded that neither violated its Community Standards. Both posts remained up. Meta’s Hate Speech Community Standard prohibits direct attacks targeting a person or group of people on the basis of protected characteristics, including sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, with “exclusion or segregation in the form of calls for action, statements of intent, aspirational or conditional statements, or statements advocating or supporting [exclusion].” The Hate Speech policy does not include misgendering as a form of prohibited “attack.” Misgendering means referring to a person using a word, especially a pronoun or the way in which they are addressed, that does not reflect their gender identity. Meta informed the Board that neither post violated its Hate Speech policy, adding that even if the post in the first case could constitute a call for exclusion, it would still be kept up under the newsworthiness allowance, given “transgender people’s access to bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity is the subject of considerable political debate in the United States.”
Meta’s Bullying and Harassment Community Standard prohibits “cognizable attacks and calls for exclusion” targeted at a private minor, private adult (if reported by the targeted person) or an involuntary public figure who is a minor (including statements advocating or supporting exclusion of a person). The public-facing language of the Bullying and Harassment policy does not consider misgendering a person to be a cognizable attack or call for exclusion. Meta informed the Board that the content in the first case did not violate the Bullying and Harassment policy as there was “no explicit call for exclusion present in the post and because the post was not self-reported by the person depicted in the video.” The company stated that although the second post targeted a minor who Meta considers to be an involuntary public figure, it did not contain a “cognizable attack or call for exclusion” so did not violate this Community Standard. Meta explained that the company allows “more discussion and debate around public figures in part because – as here – these conversations are often part of social and political debates and the subject of news reporting.”
In their statement to the Board, the user who appealed the post in the first case explained that Meta allowed what in their view is a transphobic post to stay on its platform. The user who appealed the post in the second case said that the post attacks and harasses the athlete with language that in their view violates Meta’s Community Standards.
The Board selected these cases to assess whether Meta’s approach to moderating discussions around gender identity respects users’ freedom of expression and the rights of transgender and non-binary people. The cases fall within the Board’s Hate Speech Against Marginalized Groups and Gender strategic priorities.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The impacts of Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies on freedom of expression around gender identity issues, and the rights of transgender people, including minors.
- Technical challenges in enforcing bullying and harassment policies at scale, the effectiveness of self-reporting requirements and their impacts on people targeted by bullying or harassment, and comparisons to alternative enforcement approaches.
- The sociopolitical context in the United States concerning freedom of expression and the rights of transgender people, especially for access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
تعليقات
Patricie Saigh
It is very important to me to be able to continue to call biological men what they are, because freedom of speech is the highest achievement of civilization.
Freedom of speech means that no one should be compelled to use any language against their will. The idea that using correct sex-based pro-nouns should be considered "hate speech" is not only a violation of First Amendment Constitutional rights, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a pro-noun, or any word or phrase not inciting violence, is in any way hateful. Further, it legitimizes the ongoing destruction of women's rights and is openly discriminatory against women and girls.
I will stop using facebook and write the company off as the Propaganda Department that has made it a mission to minister truth if you go through with this decision. Gender identity is a danger to women's spaces, which are a matter of physical safety particularly in vulnerable situations like homeless shelters and incarceration facilities. I cannot continue to support any company that does not consider the safety of women in these situations something that needs to be protected.
Dear Meta:
As a person with a PhD in Kinesiology and a long-time sport performance coach I will accept that "biological sex" and "gender identity" are distinct characteristics (as argued by LGBTQ+ proponents) and that each has a place in the discourse of human affairs. Neither should take precedence over the other.
In my capacity as a sports leader, I can say with certainty that violence and injustice happen to women and girls on the basis of sex (i.e. sex-discrimination happens) when persons born male are permitted access to female sports competitions via gender self-identification.
Whether athletes are the best in the world, youths in a junior talent pathway, or masters of all ages, male domination over females in body size, speed, strength, power, endurance, and overall performance is well documented.
At the prepuberty level boys are taller, heavier, stronger, faster, more agile, more explosive (in jumping and throwing), and have better cardiovascular endurance than girls. And this difference is greatly magnified post puberty, with males being stronger by 25%-50%, more powerful by 20%-160% (depending upon the sport), 40% heavier, and 10-13% faster than females.
To date, over nineteen peer review studies have shown that it is not possible to mitigate the male performance advantage in any meaningful way; whether via testosterone reduction or surgery. In Canada, many sports organizations require zero medical mitigation, allowing males to enter female competition immediately upon making a verbal declaration that they are "trans" with no means to verify the claim. Whatever the case may be, it is obvious to anyone familiar with sport that when males are permitted to self-identify into the female category at any age or level of performance (grassroots to world level) harm will befall the female athletes who must accommodate.
Sports is one of those areas in life where we simply cannot pretend that biological sex is irrelevant. It is critical that we continue to use biology-based words - including pronouns - that reflect sex-based reality so that everyone at training and competition knows exactly what we mean. Language is context-dependent, and sports is a realm that *requires* usage of the sex-based lexicon (SBL) instead of the gender-based lexicon (GBL) currently being demanded by institutions concerned with supporting a particular sector of the population for social purposes.
This leads me to a more general principle on language and communication and fair treatment of your users:
It makes no sense for Meta to punish someone for the language category they employ in their communications.
To assume that a person using SBL is engaging in "hate" is preposterous, given that it is used by people whose cognitive framework embraces physical reality rather than an ideological or political position.
Suggestion 1: Perhaps one way for Meta to establish clarity and fairness (rather than punishment) is to grant users the option of identifying in their profile information which lexicon they use in their posts - SBL or GBL. Accordingly, a SBL person should not be accused of "hate" for using "he" to refer to a "trans woman" because it is absolutely true that a "trans woman" was born biologically male (or they wouldn't be "trans") and biology is this user's reference point.
Suggestion 2: If Suggestion 1 seems too complicated, a better alternative for Meta is to not wade into these waters at all. There's no need to police SBL or GBL. If a user is insulted by such a thing, they always have the option of unfollowing or blocking the person they deem to be "hateful."
It seems to me that Meta has been wasting a lot of time and human resource attempting to police such matters. Not to mention, banning someone for using a very normal dialect (SBL) unnecessarily undermines your customer base.
Perhaps the best thing that comes out of this review is to move on and dismiss the issue of policing either SBL or GBL, as it amounts to futile censorship.
Yours in sport and communication,
Coach Linda Blade
"Misgendering" someone is not "hate speech". Getting someone's "gender" wrong is common, an unremarkable everyday event. It is not aggressive, or hateful in its intent. Even if it were spoken aggressively, that doesn't make it "hate speech". It is merely rudeness. It is ludicrous to police language in this way.
Penalising someone for "misgendering" is an authoritarian action that denies freedom of speech. It prevents thoughts and ideas where people disagree with each other from being discussed. It is a horrible and totally unnecessary penalty. Don't do it.
People have a right to understand who they are talking to. It promotes clarity and safety.
Example: the following two sentences demonstrates the importance of accurate language.
She is going to be visiting and will use the locker room with the other women.
He is going to be visiting and will use the locker room with the other women.
Each sentence explains a simple concept. Someone will be arriving and using the women’s locker room.
However, a woman may take issue when they realize the person arriving is a man.
But if accurate speech isn’t allowed to be used, this will come as an unpleasant surprise when the man arrives.
Women have a right to know who will be in their spaces. It’s simple. It’s courtesy.
There are two sexes. Gender, as a concept, is obfuscatory. The concept of "misgendering" is an attempt to allow males to gain access to female spaces—changing rooms, competitions, scholarships and other spaces which females need to be safe and to be able to participate fully in our societes. In defense of multiculturalism and the fact that allowing males into female spaces will have a deleterious impact on women of all cultures, do not classify "misgendering" as hate speech. Also, by doing so, you will be contributing to traumatization of children—who will therefore be constantly engaging in hate speech, even as they simply attempt to describe the world, and the men and women in it, accurately. Think. Then think again. Then make the correct decision.
It is and remains important to be allowed to speak the biological facts, especially when it comes to safety, privacy, and dignity of women and girls and fairness in sport. Transsexuals know and respect the difference. Trans-identified men insist on being perceived and treated like biological women. This leads to conflicts that should continue to be clearly addressed without reflexively being misinterpreted as hate speech, bulling or harrassment.
All women and girls, but especially the many women and girls who have experienced sexualised violence and abuse at the hands of men and in some cases have to suffer from the trauma consequences for the rest of their lives, must not be prohibited from expressing their perception that they are dealing with a biological man/boy and not a biological woman/girl. This is in many cases not done out of hatred of trans women and their exclusion, but because people can recognise the biological sex in a very short time. This spontaneous perception of biological sex cannot be suppressed and is also important for women and girls in many situations in order to be able to protect themselves if necessary, or at least to try to do so. Only excellent operations can ensure that a trans woman is also recognised spontaneously as a woman.
Under ECHR rules, and in UK law, UK residents and citizens have Article 9 and 10 free speech rights. These include the express right to believe and state as facts that human mammals have a biological sex, which is binary and immutable in individuals, and in the species. Sex is determined at conception by the presence of the SRY gene contributed by the male gemete; while some karytotypic variations may induce some phenotype variants the binary effect of the Y gene remains. These facts and their statements are ruled by our courts as meeting the standards of “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (WORIADS).
It is also a legal and moral right to disbelieve in systems of thought, philosophical frameworks, or theologies. The existence of a universal sense of gender identity is a philosophy that could be described as quasi-theological in nature. I do not believe in innate gender identity. Humans are of one sex class or another (within which there are variations) and have personalities which may or may not align with sociological constructs projected onto sexed bodies and functions at different times of life. Some people may internalise these projections and call them “gender identity”, just as some people assemble beliefs and language around the concept of the human soul, or attributes of virtue or sinfulness. I do not ascribe to various religious, spiritual, or mystical philsophies nor can be compelled to do so in any way.
Materially, sex is verifiable, real, and the means by which all mammals reproduce. It is not hatred to name or assert the fact of someone’s sex. A person might be hurt or offended but free speech in democratic societies permits offence to be taken, or indeed offered, without that crossing the threshhold of criminality or justiciable hatred. It is not for Meta to over-ride UK or international law.
In English, linguistically, there are words reflecting the sex of what are called ‘natural persons’, but we do not have gendered nouns or verb forms as found in German, Norwegian, French, Spanish, or the other Romance languages. Thus, we have “cattle” as a neutral noun for all bovines, where “cow” reflects the female animal, and “bull” the male. In foxes, we have dogs and vixens; in pigs and bear we have sows and boars; in sheep, ewes and rams. In humans, we have women and men. Some postmodernist scholars and a subgroup of mainly male “sexologists” have attempted to displace the word “woman” from its rootedness in biological sex, and employed this deconstruction to argue that humans can change sex or, alternatively, that while sex doesn’t change, “gender identity” does, *and this identity must at all times be “respected” and agreed to by others* *regardless of other people’s rights*.
People who believe in their gender identity are welcome to do so. I do not share their belief at all. I positively reject it. In law in the UK, and morally and ethically, believers cannot compel me to speak or not speak according to their beliefs. “Misgendering” is a belief violation; I don’t believe in literal transubstantiation as do conservative Roman Catholics either, but it’s not hatred for me to say so and you would be wrong to prohibit me from doing so *even if I was discourteous about it*. God knows the misogyny on Facebook is given free rein: if you want to police hate speech then “misgendering” should be far, far down your list.
A man or woman with their own ideas about themselves, even after drugs or surgery or both, remains the *sex* determined at their conception. It is not hatred to correctly sex them.
It’s a pity some transactivists take offence at something other people - whether women or men - said. But transactivists must not be allowed to silence women. Leave that to the Taliban.
Sex cannot be changed. That is a stubborn, universal truth. "Misgendering" a trans identified person is speaking the truth, and while the truth may hurt, it is never hate. It's just the truth.
"Misgendering" is free speech. Free speech is a constitutional right that supersedes all others in the United States. Free speech is critical for a free society. Anyone who thinks that having the right to free speech is overrated or even dangerous cannot imagine the day that their particular free speech falls under attack and is taken away. But if you support taking away someone's freedom of speech today, someone else will come for yours tomorrow. The same applies to coerced speech, which a ban on "misgendering" will attempt to impose.
You can make "misgendering" a bannable offense on Meta. You can attempt to silence the hard truth that sex cannot be changed and promote the insidious, socially destructive lies of gender identity ideology instead. But that banning of "misgendering" will never be uncontested or particularly effective. It will cost time, money and manpower to enforce. Eventually Meta will have to repeal it, because like other big multinational companies that promoted gender identity ideology, Meta will be shunned and ridiculed for it. Investors, advertisers and consumers will walk away because people prefer simple truths over complicated lies, and freedom over bondage.
TL;DR: Impose a ban on "misgendering" at your own peril, Meta.
No matter what spin you put on it, a man is a man and a woman is a woman and saying otherwise is IS hate speech. But speaking the TRUTH, is NOT hate speech. We are to speak truth not feed into lies, delusions, deception, or mental illness. It is not kind to speak lies. You wouldn’t affirm a rapist or a child molester. No matter what fancy soft name you call them. It would be a lie. You don’t tell someone with anorexic it’s ok and affirm their decision and then call it hate speech if you don’t.
Besides all that, it’s a first amendment right to speak up and speak truth. Why should those who speak lies get a “free pass” and those who speak truth get punished?
If people don’t like it, scroll on. It’s as simple as that. Don’t temple on free speech because some people get their feelings hurt. They need to grow a thicker skin.
Or they need to realize they are living a lie. And that is the crux of the matter. They know they are living a lie so their feelings get hurt, they get all upset and they demand people cater to their whims and delusions.
Sorry. That’s not how life works.
Gender identity is unfalsifiable. In most jurisdictions where Self-ID laws operate, any person is able to have any gender identity, at any given time.
This gives rise to some important questions as to how Meta will be able to fairly enforce the proposed misgendering policies:
1. How does Meta propose to confirm the gender identity of the people concerned?
2. How will Meta defend its decisions, should they be refuted?
3. How will Meta prevent the migendering policy from being exploited?
4. How is Meta able to tell the difference between a person identifying as a particular gender, and a person pretending to identify as a person of a particular gender in order to perpetrate violence or harassment?
5. The policy presumes that misgendering is deliberate/harmful/intended to do harm. Why? How will Meta balance this presumption with the rights of others to free expression?
6. Biological sex is relevant in thousands of contexts (health, breaking news, missing persons cases, medicine, science, evolution and history to name just a few). The censorship of such a fundamental fact will have a flow on effect that limits the free and factual discussion of many other important topics (Here, Meta should keep in mind that they will be censoring information on biological sex ENTIRELY on the word of users).
7. Transgender people already have sex-based protections against discrimination, why does Meta need to add an unenforceable, confusing and redundant protection on its platfor?
8. How does Meta intend to protect the sex-based rights of people harmed by gender-identity fraud?
9. Meta has expressed in POINT 3, that is is concerned with the rights of self-identified trans people to "..access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events". Is Meta aware that when individuals of the opposite sex are granted access single-sex services/groups, those single sex services/groups AUTOMATICALLY BECOME MIXED-SEX services - rendering the entire exercise pointless?
10. In light of question 9 - will Meta rename it's 'migendering policy' to something more accurate, perhaps 'The Eradication of Single Sex Spaces and Rights for no good reason' policy?
Thank you
Describing sex based realities is not hate speech it is very very important that women are able to have discussions about their Biological reality based on biological sex. This proposal has the capability to bully and harass women when they attempt to speak about matters that matter to them. It will be used to bully and harass women so rather than preventing bullying and harassing it will allow males to target women on spurious counts.
"Misgendering" isn't hate speech. When someone uses pronouns that matches biological sex (chromosomes), they are simply telling the truth based on science.
I consider myself a left-leaning person in general and especially regarding LGB rights, but the T is very different and in many cases anti-woman.
As a left-leaning person, I am always disturbed by the science denial on the right regarding climate change. Why does the left seems to want to deny science about something more straightforward?
If "misgendering" is going to be considered hate speech I will likely use Facebook much less and maybe even delete my account.
Support free speech for all!
Meta, I urge you to uphold free speech and allow people to respectfully identify the sex of humans correctly. I personally think the biological sex of a human matters, in issues of privacy, safety and fairness in sports. Banning content that identifies a human with a vagina as a woman or a person with a penis as a man is not bullying. Conveying that women should be quiet while men encroach on their spaces IS.
Humans can not change sex. They can pretend to be the opposite sex, but it is a belief, that others do not take part in. I will use the pronoun I find suitable. This is my descision what words I use. I will never lie and call a man "she".
If you make it illegal to describe reality, It will mean war against Women´s Rights and a safeguarding issue accordring to children and vulnerable women. Some evil men will lie to get to hurt vulnarable children and women.
I stand with The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF)'s commentary on these issues. WOLF is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to restore, protect, and advance the rights of women and girls. WoLF focuses on the human rights of women and girls ignored by mainstream feminist organizations, including the right to sex-segregated spaces, such as sports, and the protection of women’s freedom of speech — which is necessary to advocate for our liberation from male violence and patriarchy. We thank the Meta Oversight Board for calling for input on gender identity and free speech.
The fight for women’s rights requires an understanding of sex
The biological distinction between men and women has been the criteria by which women have been discriminated against, excluded from public life, exploited, enslaved, sexually abused, and disenfranchised throughout history. Women are not asked how they identify or how they see themselves before they experience these things. Women’s feelings are wholly irrelevant to their condition and standing in this world.
While feminism has sought to improve women’s status by dismantling sex stereotyping, the concept of “transgender” depends on the continued existence and amplification of these same sex stereotypes. Women and girls are female whether or not they look, act, or live their lives in a stereotypically feminine manner. To believe that sex is determined by a gendered soul or feminine appearance is to believe that femininity is the same thing as being female. This belief is offensive and harmful to women.
Sex is objective and immutable, while gender is socially constructed and is harmful and oppressive to women and girls.
“Sex” and “gender” both have distinct definitions and criteria. Sex is an immutable characteristic based in reality. It is defined by reproductive function; a male produces sperm and a female produces eggs, gestates, and gives birth. The National Institute of Health (NIH) describes sex as “a classification based on biological differences . . . between males and females rooted in their anatomy and physiology. By contrast, gender is a classification based on the social construction (and maintenance) of cultural distinctions between males and females.” The World Health Organization (WHO) agrees, defining “gender” as “the socially constructed roles, behaviour, activities and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women.” WHO further notes that these socially constructed roles “give rise to gender inequalities, i.e., differences between men and women that systematically favor one group.”
A person who believes in gender identity believes that a woman is a person (male or female) who “identifies” as a woman. But a man identifying as a member of the female sex would mean identifying as a member of the reproductive class that produces eggs, gestates, and gives birth. Of course, that is impossible.
Women have single-sex sports for a reason
Even in the U.S., despite ostensible legal equality between the sexes, there are still significant disadvantages to being born female, including many barriers to women’s participation in sports. Including the increased risk of physical harm to women and girls participating in sports, the risk of sexual assault and abuse from coaches or other athletes, menstruation and its impact on the body, and the risk of pregnancy, wanted or not, and its impact on athletic performance — a uniquely female experience.
A female athlete does not escape any of these obstacles, nor does she gain any competitive advantage, by self-identifying as male. Likewise, a male athlete’s self-identification as female does not subject him to this same myriad of obstacles female athletes face, so he retains an innate competitive advantage regardless of his subjective identity claims.
Meta’s Bullying and Harassment Community Standard prohibits “cognizable attacks and calls for exclusion.” Calling a male participating in women’s sports male (or referring to him as a “man” or “boy”) is not exclusion. Male athletes could always participate in sports, limited only by their own ability and determination. Girls, however, have been systematically excluded from sports in the United States until very recently, with the culture only changing after being forced to by law (Title IX). When a boy takes a spot on a girls’ team, a girl has been excluded.
If calling out males who choose to take the spots of women and girls in athletics is considered “exclusion” and “hate speech”, then all support for women’s sports should be banned by Meta — because women’s sports inherently exclude men. Or, to put it in terms Meta may understand: This is a feature, not a bug.
Gender Identity is a pseudo-religious belief with no basis in reality that should not be forced on others
Freedom of speech includes the ability to express your belief in any number of scientifically absurd ideas — often called “religion.”
The disconnect of the metaphysical “gender identity” from the physical sexed body is comparable to the religious concept of a soul: “the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.”
Some religions may sincerely believe in the soul, and those individuals should have the right on Meta and elsewhere to express that belief. But, perhaps even more important, is the right to express the belief that one does not have a soul, regardless of what a prominent and powerful community may say.
Meta should not force the belief of a gender identity on others any more than it would force any other unscientific religious belief. To force individuals to call a man “she,” especially in the context of a debate on women’s rights, is forcing women to claim adherence to this false belief system in order to participate in public life on Meta.
Women’s freedom of speech is threatened when we can not speak the truth about our oppression
The sociopolitical context of this debate is extremely concerning. Advocates for the gender identity movement have encouraged the view that it is hate speech not to speak and act at all times as though a person’s claimed gender identity was their real sex. Women have been fired from their jobs, threatened with and faced real-world violence, and in Europe even faced legal consequences — all for calling a man a man.
In one of the most egregious examples of women’s free speech being violated, victims of rape have been forced to call their male rapist “she” in court — which WoLF has directly witnessed.
How can women truly discuss the impact of male violence and patriarchy on our lives when we are not allowed to name the problem?
The Oversight Board claims to prioritize supporting the freedom of expression of women as a strategic priority. If Meta were to ban stating a person’s sex as “hate speech”, women would no longer be able to meaningfully engage in public discussion about feminism, patriarchy, their rights, or male violence on Meta’s platforms.
Proposed Policies
In alignment with the Oversight Board’s stated goal of protecting women’s “rights to freedom of expression on social media,” we encourage Meta to adopt a policy explicitly protecting women’s ability to advocate for their rights, including by not limited to:
The right to properly identify the sex of an individual or groups of individuals
The right to advocate for women’s single-sex spaces (including in sports) for the purpose of protecting women’s safety, dignity, and societal advancement
The right to advocate for women’s rights, with recognition that there is a known conflict between laws and policies promoting "gender identity" and women’s rights.
The right to advocate for LGB rights, especially the protection of lesbians, including protection from heterosexual biological males who call themselves lesbians.