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
> Disadvantages for women due to biological facts Biological facts are unchangeable Safe spaces for women Freedom of speech and religious belief <
In addition, there is the expression of one's own opinion. This is a very valuable asset. If women are no longer allowed to name what they see and are then sometimes even forced to ignore their perceptions with punishment, then that is brainwashing. Such an intervention is unreasonable and psychological violence against women. Because there are enough characteristics on the body that allow one to deduce the biological sex. This includes not only the visible breasts in women and the bulge in the crotch in men. There are also characteristics such as: larynx, forehead, pelvis, voice, broad/narrow shoulders, body hair (especially on the face). With the exception of a small number of people who have androgynous characteristics, these characteristics serve as a criterion for distinguishing male or female for the majority of humanity. The recognition takes place in a person's brain within a few seconds. This perception is not trained, it is hardwired and is part of the basic equipment of humans. To negate it would mean rejecting one's own biology.
Biological facts must continue to be addressed. Perception must not be suppressed and artificially changed through punishment.
The situation is similar with religion. There are religions for which there are only two genders, biologically and socially, nothing in between and not changeable. These religions, whether large or small, are discriminated against when they are forbidden to express their faith in public and to stand up for their worldview. The followers of these faiths are muzzled. This unequal treatment is unacceptable and is pure discrimination. From the point of view of faith, it must also be possible to distance oneself from the concept of "transgender" and to state why one does this. This in turn results in the discussion about safe places based on biological sex.
Hat man euch eigentlich ins Gehirn geschissen???
Bei uns gibt es ein Grundrecht auf Redefreiheit, Zensur ist verboten!
Men who identify as women (so-called trans-women) are men. Women who identify as men (so-called trans-men) are women. Pointing this out is not hate, it is a fact. Nobody can change their sex.
Stop mutilating free speech and language in general.
If men cannot handle that they are men, and if women cannot handle that they are women, and that there is nothing they can do about this, they need to seek professional help to deal with reality. It is not up to the rest of us to confirm their identity.
What about blind people who identify as seeing? Should they be able to get a driver's licence?
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. But I don't have to believe or affirm that . If I see a man in a dress my eyes tell me that IS a man in a dress He is not a woman or a girl.
He is not she , or her and he is certainly not plural , they , them . I see a man and that is a HE .
I will not be forced to negate the evidence of my eyes to suit his beliefs and it is most certainly not hate speech.
We have a situation where predatory men are entering female only spaces and in some cases, committing crimes, but also making it uncomfortable for the women that use them.
We have a situation where cheating men are stealing women's trophies accolades and successes .
The only way to stop this is to accept .
They are not female . And never will be They can be afforded their own safe spaces, their own sports divisions , their own classes in competitions but NEVER those of biological females .
This move seeks,to silence and oppress any person who disagrees with this fallacy , that a man can be a woman or vice versa .
We must not allow this gender ideology to cancel real biological women ( those with a vagina, ovaries, a uterus, breasts and XX chromosomes
A man with a penis testicles and XY chromosomes is just that , a man .
This is pure censorship and control of FREE SPEECH in a democratic country .
Identifying someone’s sex is not “Hate Speech”. Please, reconsider what it would mean for this and other instances of free speech.
It shouldn't surprise me that meta is considering this action as it has time and again proven that it silences women above men.
For an organisation that started its roots in community connections, it feels like in the 20 years I have been a member, Facebook has driven women further and further away.
This latest proposal is another attempt to further violate womens rights to speak the truth of who they are, and not have our language controlled by a Stalin like dictatorial engine.
If facebook actually goes ahead with this , it will be the final straw and I'll take my business to another social media platform, and spend my advertising dollars elsewhere.
Stop silencing womens voices. Stop policing our speech, and stop telling us what we are allowed to believe.
Gender cannot be changed. Sex is observed at birth, not assigned. We can't invent ourselves into a different sex. Facebook should be LGB SAFE. But the T is a made up invention and a mental health condition, and we all know it.
Stop allowing men to threaten and dominate women into silence.
I have submitted a separate comment addressing the broad issues. Here, I wish specifically to comment on 'misgendering'.
The entire concept of 'misgendering' is built on the theory that people have a gender identity which is separate from and unrelated to their biological sex. This is a recent theory. Until lately, gender' and 'sex' were synonymous and for most people on the globe, still are. This theory is solely an idea, a concept, a construct. It emanated from academic cultural studies. It has no scientific or objective basis, and actually contradicts the accepted science on human sex. Gender identity theory is something that some people believe in. This group is a very tiny percentage of the world population: most people aren't even aware of its existence, let alone its details or implications.
People who say they are transgender or non-binary are approximately 0.05% of the community. That doesn't make their views wrong or to be ignored. But it should most definitely give any organisation pause for thought, when they propose to compel the remaining 99.95% to adhere to the beliefs of this vanishingly tiny group. It is hard to think of any other instance where such a very small cohort has exerted such control over the speech and beliefs of the vast majority. 2.07% of Americans are Jewish. Should this group be awarded the power to compel all Americans, including the 98% who are not Jewish, to use certain forms of speech? And if not them, why transgender people? How is awarding this power to one tiny group and not to others, not a most egregious example of inequality and exclusiveness?
A parallel example is creationism. This, too, is a theory and belief which contradicts accepted science but is adhered to by a group. Polls suggest that the percentage of Americans who believe in the 'young earth' is anywhere between 10% and 40%. Creationists do not believe in the Darwinian description of evolution. Is Meta proposing to ban the use of the word 'evolution' or discussion of it as a fact?
The concept of 'misgendering' is meaningless to people who do not adhere to gender identity theory. It is worse than meaningless: it requires a mental gymnastic that most people do not want to undertake and find abhorrent. In order to call a male 'she', a person must either simply lie (I know this is a man but I'll tell an untruth and say he's a woman') or persuade themselves that this man is, somehow, against all evidence of the senses and intellect, a woman. And it then requires further mental contortions: "She raped the victim with her penis". "She is having her prostate exam today".
And then there is the history of the individual, a history which is inevitably shared with family and a broad circle. "I was at school with Jane at Springfield Boys College." Will family members be prohibited from posting photos or reminiscences from Jane's (formerly Joe's) childhood? Must they destroy old greeting cards and school photos? This is historical revisionism at its worst: rewriting the past and falsifying data, to support the narrative of the present.
There are some people who make a point of visiting public facilities and businesses and, when staff or officials address them by their biological sex, make complaints and raise a furore, on occasion becoming aggressive. People - usually women - have actually been dismissed from their jobs for misgendering. On these occasions, misgendering has been weaponised to persecute individuals who fail to fall into line with what is an ideology. This shows the danger contained in mandating speech control. There are considerable dangers inherent in applying such control to Meta. Not the least is that bad faith actors will scour the platform for evidence of misgendering, which they will use to persecute the user. Unfortunately, it is far from fanciful to suggest this. There are already such people who do the same in relation to other issues.
Why would a ban on language in these circumstances even be considered? What is the benefit, and to whom? It seems that the use of references to a person's biological sex rather than their gender identity - whatever that is - may cause distress to the individual concerned. That is unfortunate. But social media is full of things that distress various people. So is life. But nothing of the sort can be used to justify the censorship, the thought control and speech control involved. And the potential distress of some individuals cannot and must not be used to justify the erosion of a basic human right, a right that is the cornerstone of democracy.
Banning the use of any language is an impingement on the basic human right of freedom of speech. It impedes free discussion of a range of issues. It forces the vast majority of the population to adhere to an ideology they don't believe in and to watch every word - just as under totalitarian regimes. And in the end, it is supporting a lie.
It is terrifying that women are about to be completely silenced on the topic of men harassing women in public.
If we cannot discuss the ‘gender’ of people who are clearly men entering spaces and competitions that are reserved specifically for women, an unchanging sex category, then we have the most sexist and heinous form of censorship.
This is a green flag to allow men to enter spaces protected for women and to control all narratives. This is a gross form of harassment that leads to physical harm of women and girls in areas they are their most vulnerable.
Women deserve to be free from harassment and deserve to have their voices heard, their concerns aired, not for videos showing clear harassment of women to be banned and for the women who share these videos to also be banned.
The proposal to ban these videos and discussions for the comfort of a small and harmful minority come at the expense of women and girls everywhere and is not a small or trivial concession. Banning these videos creates a dangerous precedent and violent and misogynistic behaviour would only escalate as there would be no possible form of identifying harmful behaviour from trans rights activists.
Correctly identifying the sex of a person when talking about or to them on META falls squarely within the author's free speech, free thought and freedom of belief and expression rights. And this doesn't just stand for American users. The entire concept of "gender identity" is a highly contested belief, and many people understand it as a pseudoscientific, spiritual concept. If Meta allows users to make fun of beliefs regarding religion, religious views and fringe beliefs like astrology or young earth creationism, they should also allow "gender identity " to be criticized and poked fun of. They should not be a part of gaslighting users who recognize another user's sex (or discuss other people's correct sex) by compelling users to lie, refrain from speaking, or punishing users who are responding to reality. For many people, correctly sexing others is a sincere matter of remaining grounded in reality of the material world. It is a rejection of a dissociated worldview that takes dualism to be true (a split between the body and mind). I personally won't call a male a "she" because I know that sex is an immutable characteristic and doing so would be feeding an untruth. People are all over the map as to what they believe about themselves and what self-perceptions they hold. It should not be up to Meta to bolster some people's self-perceptions at the expense of others' rights to see that person as they do. Especially when Meta would otherwise allow users to make fun of or question the self declared identities of religious, spiritual, credentialed, authorities or public figures. Just because a person hates the speech another is using to describe them, doesn't mean it's hateful speech. And Meta should not be in the business of policing these kinds of disputes. Especially given that the whole, underlying idea (that people can change sex or have an innate gender soul or spirit or identity) is highly controversial, contested and religious in nature. It's not your job to put your hands on the scale of this important cultural debate by protecting the views on one side. People can block speech and speakers they don't want to hear. Meta shouldn't do it for them.
No one can change sex,therefore it is not hate speech to correctly refer to a man as a man or a woman as a woman.
It is important that people be free to critique gender identity ideology where its core claims clash with the rights of women and girls and gay people.
Sex matters for many important reasons.
Without sex there can be no sustainable way to enforce a lot of our norms around safeguarding, those affected are often the most vulnerable in society.
Sex is also critical in the definition of same sex attractiveness - being gay. Gay lesbian and bi are about attraction. Trans is a complex sexual reality but is defined by an inner invisible feeling about one’s own identity and therefore present different needs and priorities than the gay lesbian and bi population.
Being able to say a man is a man is important for women’s safety,
Being able to use a toilet in a gay spaces that is sex specific is important to gay people’s feeling of privacy and dignity. Same goes for women and children.
Gender identity flys in the face of many of these norms and is rightly being challenged by people on the left right centre and everything in between. I would be cautious to see it firstly as a partisan issue (all be it here in the UK the gender issue has cross party critique and action) but an issue of balance, whilst it’s important to offer dignity to trans people it’s also very important that we live in a world where we can ask questions, speak plain language and are not forced to not say what we see.
Thank you for requesting public comments on this important issue. I am a Registered Nurse and have served in various community health roles.
I care very much about the welfare of all patient populations, including those that identify as transgender. However, the notion that it is transphobic/hateful/exclusive for women and girls to voice their righteous concerns about this issue is deeply troubling. The unintended consequences of ignoring biological sex are mounting and especially obvious in women’s sports and women’s prisons. In contrast, men are not hurt when females attempt to access their spaces and their sports. That makes this a health inequity felt by women and girls alone.
It is absolutely essential that the public retain the freedom to speak about this issue without being shutdown by an opposing group. Please allow BOTH transgender advocates and women’s rights advocates to continue to express themselves through the Meta platform.
Thank you.
Beside the biological fact that women and men are two different and well defined sex. Freedom of speech on the internet is fundamental in society for several key reasons:
1. **Democratic Participation**: The internet provides a platform where individuals can share their opinions, ideas, and perspectives. In a democratic society, freedom of speech ensures that all voices, including minority opinions, are heard. This promotes informed debate, public participation, and accountability for institutions and governments.
2. **Access to Information**: The internet allows people to freely exchange knowledge and information. Freedom of speech ensures access to diverse viewpoints, which is critical for making informed decisions on social, political, and economic matters. It also helps people stay informed about events worldwide, fostering a more connected and aware global community.
3. **Innovation and Progress**: Open discourse on the internet fosters creativity and innovation. By allowing people to express their thoughts and ideas freely, society benefits from new solutions, technologies, and advancements. Without the ability to question norms and propose alternatives, progress would stagnate.
4. **Protecting Human Rights**: Women rights are Human rights! The internet can amplify the voices of those who might otherwise be silenced. It provides a platform for activists, marginalized communities, and individuals in oppressive regimes to expose injustice and fight for human rights. Freedom of speech online is a crucial tool for advocacy and social justice.
5. **Cultural Exchange and Understanding**: Online speech enables individuals from different cultures and backgrounds to communicate, share experiences, and learn from one another. This fosters greater empathy, tolerance, and global understanding, which are essential for peaceful coexistence in a diverse world.
Transactivism is misogynistic and Women Rights are being ignored or pushed back and we will regret it soon
I urge Meta not to institute a ban on so-called “misgendering.” At its heart, the issue of “misgendering” is a matter of freedom of expression and the ability to describe truth as the speaker perceives it.
All of the conflict around transgender ideology boils down to these simple facts: There are people who feel very strongly that they should have been born the opposite sex. The fact that they were not born the opposite sex causes them great distress. But because it is not possible for humans to change sex, the next-best solution, in their minds, is to force the rest of the world to pretend that they literally are the sex they wish they were, even in circumstances where such pretending is harmful to other people (e.g., female athletes, female prisoners, etc.).
It’s sad that there are people who are so desperately unhappy with their bodies, but the solution to this cannot be to force all of society to pretend that falsehoods are realities. Doing so opens the door to an Orwellian future where objective truth is verboten so long as the truth is claimed to be sufficiently hurtful to people’s feelings. A society ruled by that kind of thinking cannot function.
The bottom line is that people are the sex they are, however much they may wish otherwise. References to sex are a natural part of most languages, and in English, that includes the use of gendered pronouns. It’s not right, nor is it tenable, to forbid Meta users from speaking to the reality of a person’s sex simply because that person wishes their sex were something else.
Anytime truth is suppressed or censored, we as a society get into dangerous territory. We must always be able to speak the truth, no matter how distressing that truth might be. Not only is this necessary to a free, democratic society, but a ban on “misgendering” in particular would also muzzle Meta users of particular religious beliefs.
As you noted, the issues around transgender policies are currently the subject of great political interest and public debate. The public therefore deserves to be able to clearly communicate their thoughts on these topics, and in order for that to happen, people need to be able to use the pronouns that they perceive to be accurate. Trans activists, when they allow debate at all, will insist that the starting point of the debate has to be that “trans women are women” and that civility must be maintained by avoiding misgendering. However, using a trans person’s preferred pronouns is not merely a polite nicety that can be observed while having a debate; in reality, pronouns have to do with the crux of the conflict. The whole debate centers around whether people who identify as the opposite gender literally are that gender. For people who don’t believe that that’s possible, being forced to use an opposite-sex pronoun for a person means that they must contradict their own argument. In order to preserve freedom of expression around gender identity issues, people must be free to name the reality of the world as they perceive it. Transgender people may refer to themselves however they wish, but they have no right to dictate how the rest of the world refers to them.
You asked for feedback on the technical challenges in enforcing bullying and harassment policies at scale, so here are a couple points to consider on this topic. First, the demands of transgender people can be unreasonable and impossible to keep up with. Some identify as “genderfluid,” meaning that their preferred pronouns change week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour. It’s not fair or feasible to expect Meta users to keep up with such constantly-changing demands. Even where pronouns are static, they are often at odds with natural use of the English language – e.g., the singular “they” or made-up pronouns like ze/zir. It’s downright nonsensical, and punishing users for being unaware of these made-up words is untenable.
Another enforcement challenge is that if Meta decrees that everyone must respect everyone else’s preferred pronouns under threat of being banned, inevitably, trolls will proliferate with ever-more ridiculous demands. Users will declare that their pronouns are “your/majesty” or “attack/helicopter” or the like, and they will gleefully report anyone who doesn’t comply with them. It will be an enforcement nightmare. And if you’re imagining that it will be easy to tell the trolls from genuine complaints, again I remind you that “real” transgender people are choosing increasingly unorthodox pronouns for themselves. Neopronouns like “kittenself,” “bunself,” and “treeself” are not satire; they’re very real. Or even for the people claiming standard pronouns, you will have no way of telling who is “really trans” or not. I invite you to Google “Canadian woodshop teacher.” Looking at those images, do you think that’s a real “trans woman,” or is it a man taking the piss? What’s stopping any man from shoving balloons down his shirt and reporting anyone who won’t call him “she”? We’re at the point where parody is indistinguishable from reality, and these are the kinds of impossible distinctions you’ll have to judge if you decree that no one’s self-declared identity must ever be contradicted. It’s in Meta’s and society’s best interest for Meta not to even try to police this. Let people refer to themselves how they want, but don’t try to force other people to comply with those preferences.
I would also like to note that Meta is already on shaky ground in terms of its misinformation policies and user trust. You suppressed COVID information that turned out to be true. You suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, which also turned out to be true. If you have any hope of regaining credibility, you cannot punish users for “misgendering.” A person’s sex is one of the most fundamental things about them, and in most cases, it’s very easy for others to perceive, even when a person attempts to conceal it. Demanding that Meta users pretend a person of one sex is actually of the other is 2 + 2 = 5 territory. Everyone knows the truth, and everyone thinks it looks ridiculous when authorities try to suppress that truth. If you want people to believe you the next time there’s a pandemic, an election, or some other calamity, you have a bit of damage control to do, and suppressing accurate references to people’s sex would be the opposite of helpful in that regard.
Finally, you also asked for comments on the “sociopolitical context in the United States concerning freedom of expression and the rights of transgender people,” which is the second time within three bullet points that you asked for comments on “the rights of transgender people.” I’ve already spoken about the issue of freedom of expression, so I’ll focus here on the sociopolitical context, “especially for access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events.”
It troubles me that you’re framing this as an issue of “transgender rights.” The whole reason for all the controversy is that there is another group negatively impacted when trans people get what they want: girls and women. Trans activists will claim that “rights aren’t pie,” but the thing is, they absolutely are. In sports, there are only so many spots on a roster, lanes on a track, and places on a podium. When boys and men are allowed to take some of those spots from female athletes, it’s girls and women who unequivocally lose out. And they are losing out massively. Even one trans athlete has the potential to devastate female competition at a high level, and we are dealing with way more than one, a few, or even dozens of trans athletes.
And it’s not just sports. Again, rights are pie. When safe spaces such as female-only bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons are opened to men, those places become less safe. We now have countless examples of men who are in prison in the first place for committing sexual assault being placed in cells with helpless women – for the sole reason that they claim to be women, too. (In fact, there are so many such cases that data analysis from multiple jurisdictions now confirms that men who claim to be women are far MORE likely to be sex offenders than so-called “cis men.”) And those are just the men who get caught and go to prison. Far more just like them are roaming around, free to use bathrooms and locker rooms with girls, to leer “Oooh, titties” at them (yes, that incident is recorded fact), violating their privacy at every turn.
In short, the sociopolitical context is that girls and women are suffering grave injustices due to transgender ideology. To protect them, we must be able to speak clearly about what’s happening, and that includes using the correct pronouns for the people who are harming them. If you don’t care about truth or freedom of expression, I hope you can at least bring yourself to care about those women and girls. Care about the college swimmers who, with no warning, found themselves naked next to a fully-intact, 6-foot-2 man, and then watched helplessly as he smashed records and took titles that should have been theirs, accolades for which they’d trained and sacrificed their whole lives. Think of the women cowering in prison cells, with nowhere to run from their bigger, stronger cellmates who are in prison in the first place because they’ve already raped and murdered other women. Think of the little girls (plural) molested in women’s bathrooms by “Katie” Dolatowski, and whether society playing along with his wish to be a woman was worth those girls’ trauma.
All of those injustices started with pronouns – with a little lie that ballooned into ever-bigger lies. Meta users must be free to decline to participate in that lie.
These cases demonstrate the importance of remembering that rights and demands for rights may clash, and that the rights of both transgender and nonbinary individuals AND of others, notably of people of the female sex and of those gays and Lesbians who define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex should matter.
Freedom of expression is important so that we can discuss and debate these conflicting rights and demands for rights, though this should be done with civility. Choosing to, for instance, ban 'misgendering' seems to me to imply that one set demands for rights which conflict here are being prioritized*. Such an approach would be authoritarian, and ultimately cause severe difficulties in, say, upholding the rights which women have won with such great difficulty.
This is because the oppression of women and girls has always been sex-based, and it is difficult to see how such oppression could be fought if the female sex is not allowed to have collective names and clear definitions. It should be possible to give this important right of debate without harassment or mistreatment of those who are transgender or nonbinary.
*If third person singular pronouns include they/them, it then follows that all such pronouns, including she/her and he/him cannot be based on sex. So what are they then based on? The only empirically verifiable answers depend heavily on sexist stereotypes about femininity/masculinity and/or belief in retrogressive gender roles and norms. Thus, if we are forced to use pronouns on the basis of gender identity, we are automatically then told that all those who accept the labels 'men' or 'women' are comfortable with such stereotyping for themselves. As this is not the case, the result is problematic.
Many young people and children seek connection and acceptance through social media. We all search for role models when we're young, and in today's society, these are the places a lot of young people are looking for people to lead them by example into adulthood.
Limiting sex-based speech limits their horizons and has contributed to greater confusion in teens & young adults as well as a reduction of individualism in thought and deed.
These are nuanced issues. Individuals suffering from gender dysphoria should be able to see as many sides of transitioning as possible, just as members outside the LGBT community should have the opportunity to see facets of our community (I am a lesbian) in hopes that knowledge fosters growth and acceptance. Free speech is essential, here! Young people who only get to see the ultra-positive "trans-influencer" type videos & shorts may be encouraged down that path prematurely, and may not have the knowledge and tools to distinguish between role models and predators as well. Young people need the tools to express their true selves and gain acceptance rather than simply seeking affirmation of behaviors. To this end, yes, debate videos need equal space, as do detransitioners, tomgirls, conservative gays & trans and varying views on the subject matter. Blocking these views only leads to fear & misunderstanding. Blocking sex-based speech also leads to fear and misunderstanding.
Let it all be known with the exception of obviously predatory or truly hateful/bigoted content, so people can make fully informed decisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jana Klein
Please do not shut down free speech.
It is not hate to correctly sex someone, and it is, in fact, important to do so for the safety of women and girls, and fairness in women's and girls' sport.
You will find that the vast majority of people agree, and it's just a vocal minority who can't understand that it's male bodies that pose a threat to women and girls, no matter how they identify. The percentage of men who sexually assault women and girls doesn't change based on whether by they identify as women or not. In fact, data on prison stats on the UK show an even higher incidence of sex crime perpetrated by men identifying as women.
Women should be able to speak about this as it pertains to our lives. We are not living in the middle ages where women don't matter.
Meta must not ban what they have called "misgendering". This is because the words "man", "woman", "he", "she", they are not used solely to refer to "gender" or to "identity". The majority of people in the world still use these words as they have always historically been used; to refer to sex. Sex, gender and identity, are three different things. So called Misgendering is often really correctly noting someones sex, with no reference to culturally constructed gender (roles and stereotypes) or to identity (thoughts and feelings). Meta has no place policing the language people use to refer to biological sex, or policing our ability to refer to it at all.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex isn’t hate speech.
To whom it may concern and all authoritarian Social media companies,
You have an obligation to the people who use your platforms not to penalize free speech especially our right to name reality. The right to individual expression, wich trans identifying individuals take full advantage of, includes others rights to free speech and freedom of and from religion. The belief in gendered souls falls under freedom of and from religion meaning if they have the right to express their religious beliefs on your platform then so should others have the right to not believe in their religion. Most of all when you compel speech under duress you are forcing worship on nonbelievers. Would you promote the same rules for catholics? Would you ban non-Catholics if they refuse to call priests father? Or for saying there is no God? Of course you wouldn't. Because Christianity in all its forms has fallen out of favor within mainstream culture.
A woman is the adult FEMALE of the HUMAN species not feminity or a thought in a man's head. Lesbians are not a porn category that men can opt into because it gets them off. Supporting men taking the words that describe our female humanity and then punishing us for objecting to their misogyny as a hate crime is gaslighting in its most extreme form. You should be ashamed treating half the world's population with such contempt.
Implementation of this rule for "misgendering" is comparable to labeling someone blasphemous. Removing women for calling men what they are wich is men is comparable to a witch hunt.
Interesting that while you wish to remove the accounts of people who name reality, primarily women, from your platform while simultaneously allowing men to post porn, child sexual abuse, and misogyny in all its forms goes completely ignored. This includes men who pretend to be women posting videos with offensive sexist stereotypes of what a woman is and the rape and death threats they have repeatedly sent to the women who object.
I hope you consider that you are engaged in putting misogynistic sanctions on women's rights to advocate for themselves and speak about the reality of their lives separate from the male sex class who have a long history of oppressing them in just the same way as your are now.
You are on the wrong side of history. Not just when it comes to the rights of women but everyone's rights to free thought, free speech and freedom of and from religion.
The history books will not speak kindly of you if you follow through with your authoritarian policies meant to subjugate the majority for the whims of a small group of insecure narcissists. Good luck in your endeavor to be the internet Stasi and enjoy the mass exodus of women and all the intelligent sane people to your competitors platform X. You know I'm right.
Now go apologize to your mother.