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
Correctly stating someone's birth sex is not bullying or harassment. Those of us who don't subscribe to gender identity ideology should be able to voice our opinion. Activists who do subscribe to gender ideology are extremely vocal, and drown out the voices of ordinary people who simply don't agree with them. Please continue to let Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp members voice opinions that may not be popular.
I am shocked to hear that Meta is considering making ‘misgendering’ a Hate Crime! How can identifying and referring to a person as their birth sex be a Hate Crime? There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. There has been discussion lately on social media about ‘misinformation’ and how this should be controlled, but by forcing people to refer to someone by the wrong pronouns Meta would be promoting misinformation.
I hope we can agree that people cannot change sex, no mammals can, however many drugs or surgeries are involved. So, men who identify as women are still men and women are rightly concerned about men being in the single-sex spaces, be they restrooms, changing rooms, prisons or sports. The clue is in the name – these spaces are single-sex and must be kept for women. And men’s spaces must be kept for men.
When men dressed as women enter our single-sex spaces we are alarmed, afraid, embarrassed, feel uncomfortable, and are forced to leave. Your Hate Crime policies would severely curtail our ability to freely discuss these problems, which is obviously wrong.
We don’t hate the person but we hate the behaviour and must be free to call it out. Are you really saying that the recent debacle with Imane Khelif couldn’t have been discussed on any of your platforms? Virtually everyone agrees that Khelif is a biological male, but the media refers to him as ‘she’. Are you going to say that our discussion of this important matter, involving a man hitting a woman in the face, is now Bullying and Harassment?
You will find people leaving your platform for a more sensible one such as X. You will also find that many people, particularly women, will ignore your restrictive policy, and you will tie up many hours policing it.
In short, your Hate Crime policy is misguided, short-sighted and will not work.
I primarily disagree with this ban because I’m a sex realist. A person born with small gametes is a man no matter what medical procedures are undertaken (gametes cannot be changed). However I acknowledge that there is debate around this and so given that it might be simply polite to use a person’s preferred pronouns, I further disagree with the ban because it would be dangerous to equate misgendering with hate speech, when it is at most an insult. If someone called my hair mousy - even knowing that it really irks me and plays into my insecurities which I’ve been working on - it’s not hate speech. We all have to hear things we don’t like. To ban someone who states what they see (even if they are mistaken ) is dangerous.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not “Hate Speech”
Men are not women. It's a fact and banning us from saying so is dangerous. These are entitled men but beyond that, we have Free Speech in the United States...supposedly. I will legally challenge Meta's attempt to ban us from "misgendering" someone as hate speech. There is nothing hateful about the truth or facts in general. These men "misgender" themselves when they falsely claim to be women.
Meta is wading into VERY DANGEROUS WATERS if it imposes policies that define 'misgendering' as hate speech.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not “hate speech” because sex is a biological reality that cannot be dismissed, subverted or altered by anyone's feelings.
DO NOT DESTROY YOUR REPUTATION BY ALIGNING YOUR COMPANY WITH TRANSITIORY AND PROFOUNDLY ILLIBERAL IDEOLOGIES THAT ARE AT ONCE MISOGYNISTIC AND HOMOPHOBIC!
Being truthful about the nature of a person's biological sex is not hate speech. Considering it as such seriously impedes society's ability to discuss matters that disproportionately impact women. This includes when self-id laws allow males who claim a transgender identity to be placed in women's prisons and jails (I have personal experience with this), when transwomen compete in women's sports and when lesbians argue that their sexual orientation is based on sex not gender identity.
Material reality and acknowledge it does NOT in any form is hate speech, FORCING the world to accept a LIE and impulse it while punishing those who won't do it is just crazy.
TQ persons are free to feel how they want, but the rest is NOT obliged under any circumstance to backups their made-up words nor call them something they are not and that is also affecting the rights of women.
I'm 67 years old and the English language I have used all my life identifies two genders, male and female, which in turn reflect the biological sexes. I respect each person's self identity as their own business. In turn, I ask for the same respect for the reality I grew up with, the cosmology I have grown up with and the language I have always used. If I am forced to address a male [who identifies as a female] as "she" and "her," I am betraying my own identity, the language and understanding of the world with I have lived my life and which the world has used along with me. My granddaughter is "transgender," and she has evolved to accept whatever way an individual needs to address her—she is not offended. Of course, she might prefer we all say "he" and "him," but she understands that it is not "hate speech." I hope that we can all evolve such acceptance.
Calling my use of traditional English, when I so-call "misgender" someone, is in itself a form of "hate." I ask for the same respect for my reality, my language, and my own perception of the world around me. Respect for those who identify as a gender not reflecting their biological sex, MUST not require the altering and skewing of English to accommodate them. Doing so will not bring more love to the world, and if Meta decides to put in place such a requirement, I will not abide by it. And if I am ever chastised by Meta, I will delete my account.
Thank you for considering my viewpoints.
Calling someone by their correct biological sex is NOT hate speech. Why should we indulge their fantasy?
I know that this decision is came from a couple of cases about men who identify as women going into women's restrooms and into women's sports, and how uncomfortable that would make the women feel. How would YOU feel if your little girl had to share a public restroom or lose out on sporting opportunities because women's spaces are rapidly disappearing? What about men who identify women wanting to date lesbians? Are lesbians transphobic because they won't date them? What about male prisoners who identify women going into women's prisons? According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, fully 48 percent of these men are registered sex offenders. These women have to share cells with them. Don't you think this is wrong?
When the idea of "woman" becomes a feeling and no longer biological reality, women lose out in legal rights. Stop erasing women.
Calling a man a man is not hateful. Trans women are men. Stop classifying women’s rights as hate speech. Gender identity is not relevant in single sex spaces.
It is not harrassment to refer to people according to their known biological sex. Even is a person refers to someone as a man/he or a woman/she incorrectly, this mistake is in no way demeaning or reprehensible because both men and women are equally entitled to respect and human rights. At worst, incorrectly used apronous in reference are amusing, but this should never be assumed malicious — furthermore, even if it were maliciously said, there are just insults and not a criminal action, nor anywhere close to incitement of violence.
The use of pronouns according to “gender identity”, a new and paradoxical concept, instead of sex, which gender is the descriptor of, can and will induce gender dysphoria in others especially children.
I am having a hard time understanding how it is going to be considered "hateful" if someone refuses to call a male a woman or a female a man. Most people believe in science over ideologies and to force people to validate mockery of entire sexes of people by affirming that as long as a person who (according to the check so many gender stereotypes off a list (growing a beard as a female or breasts as a male with the help of big pharma) is blatantly sexist! It's unbelievable that as an adult human female with a female child in 2024, that I not only have to worry about n our government dictating what she can and can not do with her own body in the event that she has an unwanted or unviable fetus but she will also have to worry if she is woman enough as a male can easily gain access to spaces specifically established to protect her while she is in vulnerable situations (ie dressing out for a swim meet in front of a "female" with penis). Now, to see Facebook take this stance, where refusing to play into the patriarchy of this movement is seen as "hateful" this is outright disgusting, in fact it it is one of the clearest examples of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) a tactic used by narcissists to avoid accountability! No matter how many female gender stereotypes a male seems to check off the list, he will at best be a feminine male, never a woman, just as females who mock males by checking off gender stereotypes associate with being male will only ever truly be a masculine female, never a male. This is coming from a left leaning person who prioritized science over politics always! If Facebook is in such a need to ban people for hate speech to meet a quota, maybe they can consider banning people who make comments like the ones made by people who threaten violence when they can't resort to science to defend people who have been "misgendered."
All Trans people are guilty of misgendering themselves, so Meta will be banning all Trans people from Facebook.
This is beyond ridiculous....boys are boys, girls are girls. Stop feeding this madness!! We are most definitely, undeniably, biologically different!! Pelvic bones are, and bloodwork is proof, why is this being denied?!?!? Males cannot become females, cannot give birth and no matter what fake breasts contraptions you men put on to act like a woman nursing, you are still a man!! This is not bullying or hate talk, it's the freaking facts!! Men don't belong in women's spaces and sports, nor do women belong in men's spaces and sports.
1. Meta and its subsidiaries have an obligation to allow the free flow of opinion and expression without censorship to their personal views. The First Amendment guarantees this right and altering it is a threat to our Constitution and our democracy. The gender identity conversation is one of the most important topics across multiple generations currently in the United States.
Women today are under attack by many social media platforms. Women have the right to express their desire and need to have single-sex safe spaces and single-sex sports. Expressing that, no matter how offended the reader who disagrees with that opinion may find it, is not hate speech. It is not bullying to have a different opinion and express that opinion. It is not harassment to have a discussion on a platform defending your opinion. Users who do not agree have free will to not read the post, not respond to the post and/or not participate in the discussion.
2.While AI is a useful tool, merely flagging suspect words and phrases is an exercise that does not generate a useful outcome. Human review is paramount to determining the intent of the statement and whether or not there is an imminent threat that would require law enforcement intervention. A statement that a person disagrees with is not bullying or harassment.
Human intervention is necessary to determine if the intent of the statement is meant for unlawful acts, such as sexual exploitation, pandering, fraud, etc. That behavior should be reported immediately to the proper law enforcement agency.
Users who repeatedly report other users with the intent to silence their opinions, or use bots to report other users on a mass scale should be removed from the platform.
3.No one should be able to tell how the platform parent company or employees lean in terms of their socio political beliefs. It is irrelevant. The platform should uphold the First Amendment right to free speech regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the user. All humans have rights. Transgender rights do not trump the rights of women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, LGB or any other group that is considered protected. There should not be a ranking system that allows transgender individuals to have more or less rights than any other group.
Girls, women and their supporters have the right to voice their opinion that we need single-sex safe spaces (locker rooms, prisons, rape centers) without having males invade our spaces. We also have the right to accept the science: to not believe that men can become women, to disagree that children should be sexually mutilated and believe that males have an unfair sports advantage when competing against females.
The ability to correctly identify a persons sex relevant and important in many contexts. It is essential to open, truthful and free discourse.
A human cannot change sex - Prove me wrong
Trans ideology is faith based -
No faith has the right to demand that other's must believe what they believe. - Prove me wrong
Trans activists slander, bully, assault, threaten with rape and murder, silence, and doxx, those who do not share their beliefs - Prove me wrong
People who do not share their beliefs do not slander, bully, assault, threaten with rape and murder, silence and dox those who believe trans ideology - Prove me wrong
Hate speech laws, conversion therapy laws, self identification laws, and safe space practices are all used to silence legitimate criticism - Prove me wrong
Trans people are not the most oppressed and marginalized people on the planet - Prove me wrong
Self identification for men who claim to be women tramples on the hard fought rights of women - Prove me wrong
Insisting that people use pronouns that deny the sex of an individual is a violation of the right to free speech - Prove me wrong.
Looking forward to your proofs.
Hello,
I would like to submit a comment as a lesbian and mother who is concerned about free speech and concerned for those who do not conform to gender stereotypes.
We must remain mindful of the difference between words and actions and give space for meaningful engagement on social media platforms.
We need to ensure that users are not being policed as being on the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ side of an issue. As Meta has said, the examples raised for comment reflect active debates in society- this is important for framing our understanding of whether or not we are talking about Hate Speech.
More and more, people are speaking up on these tricky issues - questions surrounding the principles of gender identity and trans rights, rather than criticizing individuals themselves. Even if some would argue that engaging in discussion and debate makes them feel uncomfortable, we cannot expect platforms to monitor or limit the impact of political and social discussions on someone’s feelings. Free speech was the backbone of civil rights movements of the 20th and 21st centuries and we should continue to use it as a core principle as we navigate new rights movements as a society.
I would like raise the point specifically about ‘misgendering’. It is obvious to state that the basis of this is by hiding one’s biological sex to live as the opposite gender.
This can include changing a range of characteristics in how someone presents themselves- from physical changes to name and pronoun changes - to changing little to nothing about their appearance. There are growing examples of the diversity of how pronouns and trans identities are adopted which is wide-ranging and unique to the individual. Therefore, how would one be expected to respond or regulate this with any consistency given individual preferences? How can you fairly criticize someone as using Hate Speech for misgendering someone based on something so fluid and subjective?
More importantly are the debates in society.
Women’s safety concerns are real. Fairness in athletic ability is the basis of categories in sports. There is a growing divide between medical establishment guidance in the US and UK on gender affirming care. And a growing number of ‘detransitioners’ who are leaving their trans identities to return to their biological identities and given names and pronouns. The debates are evolving and not settled and everyone is entitled to an opinion- and our society is strong when people engage.
And lastly there is the issue of children. Without using clear language and debate and using words based on reality, we send a message to our kids that words matter more than meaning, that feelings matter more than fact and that they need to grow up thinking the right things or they will not be allowed to speak and name things as they are, even if they aren’t clear what that is.
Lastly, I would ask you to consider Hate Speech on gender identity in social media through the lens of discrimination and law as it relates to other protected classes. Discrimination by race or ethnicity, for instance, is very different to gender identity - these are immutable characteristics that we are born with and cannot change- skin colour or location of birth. We base our laws policing it on long established human rights principles to give fair access and protections to all. Conversely, Homosexuality is defined by behaviors, not immutable characteristics; same sex individuals gained protections and civil rights through overturning sodomy laws and granting rights and protections like gay marriage. Through long and hard debates and fights, at last we decided that these individuals deserve protections like others. These civil rights are now also awarded to transgender people as well.
However, ‘correct’ pronoun usage and allowing boys who identify as girls playing on girls sports teams or to use women’s bathroom are not ‘civil rights’. We have not had debates in society yet that confirm that someone’s desire to have someone else call them by a certain name or pronoun should be the law. Therefore, we are talking about policing a ‘Hate Speech’ that is different to the other’s discrimination examples above - the full range of ‘rights’ and protections that are being objected to in these example for comment have not been debated in legislation or in evening talk shows or on school debate clubs. We have lumped civil rights protections for trans people (which are clear and good) and this debate which is about about accommodating individual internal preferences for how people talk about them.
Until we have settled these debates in the open, Meta will have an important role to play in ensuring all sides are heard.
Thank you.