Descripción del caso
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.
Comentarios
A ban like this would be a direct blow to the rights of women; and frankly, be terrifying. Silencing women and our allies in this way would mean we can no longer name our oppressors. No longer speak openly about our experiences. No longer give us a seat at the table. Women are women because of our biology. We are not asked how we “identify” before subjecting us to the great number of horrors and discriminations created for women and girls. This would be one more discriminatory action against us.
Re: Meta/Facebook's potential pronoun policy, I do not think your company should implement any rules or restrictions on users' use of language to describe or refer to other people on any of your platforms. Such a policy would constitute compelled speech, it would be an infringement on the First Amendment rights of users in the United States, and it would be a pointlessly authoritarian restriction on users in countries that do not have constitutional free speech protections.
Debate is crucial in a free society. By censoring debate, Meta appears to take sides in a debate that has significant ethical and legal implications. Gender Identity Theory and the associated medical treatments are causing significant harm to vulnerable children and young adults. More and more evidence is coming forward that shows that these treatments are not based in science and that the long term effects are variable. Social media has the potential to glamorize transgenderism and influence children and young adults to take on this identity. Meta should be careful not to censor detransitioners who discuss the real harms being caused by gender identity theory. There is mounting evidence that the treatments being provided is a greater medical scandal than lobotomies.
This is an incredibly complex and volatile subject that ultimately is very simple.
Trans identifying people are guests in the world they are entering into. They do not have more rights than those already there, (the gay community, or female spaces), and as guests they certainly don't get to define what either a man, or a woman is.
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of trans identifying people are not gay; they are mostly disenfranchised fetishists.
Claiming to be a lesbian because you're attracted to women, but have a penis makes you a heterosexual imposter and a cheat, undermining the Pride movement as a whole, and stealing their narrative; not gay.
It's about biology. No, really, it is. There are five genetic alles that are related to gender dysphoria.
1.2% of males have some of these alles and some of those will feel that they should be women.
0.3% of females have these alles and may feel like they should be men. In all of these cases, they are feelings, and not in any way factual.
In a school of 1,000 there would potentially be 12 trans identifying boys, and 3 trans identifying girls, but there won't be that many, because not everyone with those alles will manifest as trans. It is statistically impossible that everyone with these alles will suffer from dysphoria.
I know, because I have 2 of those 5 alles, and am a masculine male, who's never felt feminine in my life.
So there's a significant problem when people are told that science doesn't matter, that biology doesn't matter, and that it's just a feeling.
It's a bit more than just a feeling, IF you have those alles, but if you don't, and are just seeking to be part of something, and be empowered, and in doing so transition, it is simply cosmetic surgery that is no different than a tummy tuck, and tax payers shouldn't be in the hook for that.
Beyond that, when science is used to defend gender dysphoria and trans people, 100% of the time the science they roll out to prove the existence of trans people are genetic anomalies for people who are Intersect, perhaps like Imane, or who have Downs syndrome, et ceteras, and aren't trans identifying at all. This is ironic, because if you use that same science with someone trans identifying, claiming those anomalies are trans, you'll get an earful and a half as to why you're wrong, (and you would be).
Gays have fought for centuries to prove that they have no choice but to be who they are; that being gay is NOT a choice, (or a feeling), so allowing people to say that being trans is just a feeling and then allowing these same people to steal the voices of both gays and women with their trans narrative is beyond wrong.
Back to the alles. There are currently far more trans identifying people than there are people with the alles associated with dysphoria, and that can only mean one thing; that many of these people are lying about who, and what they are. This isn't surprising. The popularity of the trans movement is that it allows a large group of emasculated, disenfranchised men, or women to assume power where they had none, and ultimately through manipulation control a nation.