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
It is not hate to correctly sex individuals as either male or female. So-called misgendering is a war on reality. Furthermore, it’s an unconstitutional war on our freedom of speech.
Recognizing biological reality isn't hate. A person's feelings or preferences never should trump reality.
Did the powers that be at Meta forget that you live in the United States, where freedom of speech is a right? A good 50% or more of the population believes that the concept of trans is just a fake ideology, that has nothing to do with material reality of humans. Maybe another 25-40% goes along to be compassionate, but deep down doesn't believe that one can wave a wand and change one's sex from that observed at birth.
You have been censoring people on both ends of the political spectrum for daring to say the words that sex is real, gender is fake, and that it's not bigotry to say so. Your misogyny is showing when you take special aim at women with this point of view. How dare you be the guardians of the largest social media experiment in history, and then deny that reality can be spoken by more than half of the world's population who participate in your platform? You're not the police of the world or of cultures. You've created a town square, now let people use it freely, lest you divulge your true motivation of promoting transhumanism. Please stop now.
Correctly identifying a person's sex is not hate speech. The entire concept of hate speech is an attack on free speech. Free speech is absolutely essential to our society.
It is surreal that within two weeks of Meta founder issuing a mea culpa for succumbing to Biden administration efforts to restrict COVID related "misinformation," Meta is now considering whether to prohibit accurate sex-based language on its platform. Meta can only make good on its founder's supposed commitment to free speech by rejecting the made-up concept of "misgendering" (aka calling people by accurate pronouns that match their sex). No one owns their pronouns; pronouns are a part of our common language. We use them to communicate. This means no one gets to claim a pronoun at odds with the way others perceive him/her, and no platform should punish users for using language to convey the truth of sex rather than to virtue signal by bowing to down to gender. Down the path of preferred pronouns lies the horrors of "pregnant people" and "front holes" and "chest-feeding" until before you know it, you are uttering the words "her penis." Let's not go there. The sooner social media platforms take a stand against the manipulation that calls the truth "actual violence" and claims "harm" from the normal practice of matching pronouns to sex, the sooner we can beat a retreat from the tower of gender Babel the genderists are putting up right under our noses.
I believe freedom of speech and thought should be the right of all people. This means that I support someone's right to believe in gender ideology, just like any other philosophy or religion, but I also support everyone's right to not believe in it. I would hope that proponents of both sides could speak with respect to one another. I fully believe there are ways to protect the rights of transgender individuals while also protecting women's rights. If we cannot have open conversations using science-based language, we will never be able to find a balanced approach. There are many situations where sex differences do not matter, but if we are not allowed to talk about the times when sex does matter, how will women ever be treated equally? Misgendering may feel hurtful to some individuals, but can it be hate speech if it is simply the use of scientific language or making scientific observations or arguments? Thank you for your consideration of this complicated topic. I hope you can create a policy that does not take away women's voices.
trans is a paradox. correctly sexing people requires misgendering them. affirming reality is no more transphobic than criticisms of religion is islamophobic.
Correctly identifying the actual sex of an individual should not be forbidden or considered harassment or worthy of action. Sex is a basic property of human beings and it is an infringement of free speech to prevent people from speaking of it.
In order to preserve women's rights, dignity, safety, privacy and freedom of association and speech, it is vital that it remains permissible to openly identify and state the sex of persons where this is relevant, even if said persons claim to have gender identities at odds with their sex. It is not hate speech to correctly name female and male persons, women and men, girls and boys, as such - it implies no value judgement and is simply a statement of material fact. Regardless of anyone's ideological convictions to the contrary, it is not currently possible for humans to functionally change our sex; and especially when it comes to discussion of women's single-sex spaces and provisions (including toilet facilities, sports, shelters, hospital wards, prisons, online spaces, etc) it is necessary that we may freely acknowledge that there is a difference between a male person who "identifies as" a woman and female people who physically ARE women.
There is no way to avoid mentioning someone's biological sex (as opposed to gender identity) when discussing the controversies around transgenderism. The fact is that the person's biological sex is relevant and central to the problem. To suppress speech about someone's biological sex means suppressing any meaningful discussion on this topic.
Recently I came across a news story in which an 11-yr old girl was told to share a room overnight with a transgender-identified boy during a school overnight trip. Neither the girl nor her parents were informed of this arrangement beforehand. This is the kind of situation that arises when transgender individuals are considered to be literally their gender identity, and the facts about their biological sex are ignored. (This news story, including the parents' law firm's letter to the school can be found by googling "daily signal olohan trans boy 12/4/23")
I mention this news story as an illustration of the kinds of conflicts around transgender identity, and how the ability to talk freely about a transgender individual's biological sex is essential.
IMO Facebook shouldn't take sides in these controversies, and suppressing speech about the biological truth certainly does that.
I urge Facebook to allow the videos and other material that show the ramifications about transgenderism. This is news and public information. The only way to resolve these controversies is to allow all the facts to be discussed out in the open.
Being an American based company with headquarters here, we have this thing called the Constitution. And while it only protects against government censorship it is a good barometer of how a society should act even without a sovereign power telling them what to do. Have we become that soft as a society where feelings of a tiny minority of the population dictates to the much larger whole what we can and can not do? Do women and girls not deserve their own spaces and their own sports? Why are we not allowed to criticize the actions of others while they are in public? What you are saying to everyone is that Meta is willing to pander to a small minority at the expense of 51% of our population? If Meta moves forward with this change, and I can only reliably speak for myself, will close and delete every meta account that I have.
Gender identity is a theoretical discussion for which there is no empirical proof i.e. it is a matter of opinion. It is acceptable for opinions to differ and this is not hate speech. It is also unethical to try to compel the speech of others i.e. impose you ideology or beliefs on others or to prohibit genuine discussion. The empirical fact, accepted by all credible biologists, is that sex in all mammals is binary and dictated by the type of gametes a person's body is biologically programmed to produce - large gametes for females and small mobile gametes for males. Arguing erroneously that a person can change sex may be harmful to individuals who are uncomfortable - for a host of reasons - with societal expectations placed on them. It may well lead young people down the path of experimental medical interventions with often poor outcomes. These are genuine concerns and debate about this should be encouraged rather than silenced.
Dear Meta,
Confirming basic biological reality is not hate speech. A hardline policy on this matter means taking a forceful position on a very new social issue—one that if handled poorly deeply endangers biological women. I am a biological woman, and I do not want biological men in women-only spaces—including digital spaces, and I do not feel safe having biological men take on my identity as a woman. Please protect biological women by relaxing your stance on this issue.
It is not hate speech to observe a person's natural sex. Please stay real, Facebook, and don't require us to bow to the trans overlords. We need Freedom of Speech now more than ever. Don't censor us for speaking up for women's and girls' sex based rights.
Expressing personal views on the issue of biological men in women’s spaces and in women’s sports is not bullying or harassment. Silencing women from speaking about their experiences is bullying. Prioritizing the feelings of biological men over women is unjust. It’s misogyny. Meta is a platform where all people should be free to express themselves without censorship. The trans issue is not impacting men in the same way it impacts women. Women have a right to speak out and be heard. The fact is biological differences between males and females exist regardless of how a person feels about their gender identity. Cases exist of women being victimized in prisons and other formerly female only spaces by biological males claiming to be women. Female athletes have been seriously injured by biological males claiming to be women. Women must be able to speak about these issues. Women must have platforms to ask important questions and find support.
The action the oversight board is considering is clearly aimed at pandering to a small minority at the expense of women everywhere.
If implemented, this would be a huge infringement on free speech. Meta should remember that being "trans" is a belief, and although beliefs are protected by law, they cannot be imposed by force or constraint onto others. The belief that men and women are defined by their sex, not by their gender, is also protected. Just like in the case of any other type of belief (religious beliefs, for example, which are often contradictory and opposite), people should not be punished for holding them, or suffer the imposition of compelled speech.
I'm a woman, noun. Adult human female and I deserve my sex based rights and sex based language that refers to my biologogy and biological functions . I was born and observed female at birth.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not “Hate Speech!” It's real, legitimate and based in biology, which is physical. It's in your cells, DNA, genes, every fiber of your very being and can't be changed or removed. It was there at birth and will be there at death. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with biology. It's an identity. It's a thought, a feeling and a perception of self, that is impossible to identify, because it's in one's head. I can't read minds and it isn't my responsibility to affirm someone's identity (self perception, self-id), because it's not physically recognizable. "GOD" created male and female, the two sexes, which are recognizable. "HE" didn't create gender identities. Gender ideology-identity, self-id is a social construct that is harmful, unrealistic and devisive. It only benefits boys, men males. It erases girls, women, females as a protected class of citizens. #sexnotgender
Meta should allow content that correctly labels people of male sex who express a gender identity of ‘woman’ as actually men. This is factually correct.
Furthermore, the current progressive experiment in trying to make people believe in gender identities is failing. Two thirds of Americans are now saying in polling (eg pew research) that they are aware that you can’t change sex, and men who want to be women are still men.
Banning true information from Meta will simply have the effect of reducing the platform’s reputation and trustworthiness
I am concerned that Meta thinks that this is more important than videos, memes and comments that promote racism, misogyny, conspiracy theories and threats of violence. I have reported posts containing these subjects on numerous occasions, but have always received the reply that these don't go against Facebook Community Standards. It seems photos of masked, armed men threatening to use force to wipe out people with different political beliefs are OK as are demeaning sexualised photos of women etc.
I would prefer Meta tackled these first as these have much greater real life consequences.
Identifying a persons biological sex is not “Hate Speech”
Confusion is not "Hate Speech"
Personal belief in reality is not "Hate Speech"
Identifying the biological sex of a person for the safety and privacy of biologically female women and girls is not "Hate Speech"
Biologically female women and girls working to create safe spaces for themselves is not "Hate Speech"
Berating, harassing, attacking and stalking biologically female women and girls because they are biological female women and girls on social media is bigoted, harmful and dangerous "Hate Speech"
Corporations utilising social media as their tool to target, bully, discriminate against and silence women and girls who are biologically female is misogynistic violence and a human rights violation