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
Posts pointing out scientific truths are not hate speech - it is possible to point out that a trans person is of a particular biological sex without this being 'phobic'. There is no judgment or hatred implied in stating factual reality and its real-world implications. Taking down videos because of factual content (that a trans person is in a bathroom of the sex to which they do not belong, or that a trans person is competing on the sports team of the sex to which they do not belong) is to point out biological reality - and the rights and wrongs of this can and should be debated.
In UK law, gender identity is NOT a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act and both sports teams and bathrooms can be sex (not gender) segregated for reasonable purposes (of safety or fairness) under that Act. Therefore to remove videos which promote a position permitted under the Act in the name of hate speech is legally illogical and a manifestation of compelled belief (that of imposing belief in gender ideology and not permitting debate). There are now several instances of UK case law supporting n individual's right to 'believe in' sex as a biological reality and not be discriminated for it.
Imposing an ideological view by the taking down of videos deemed 'transphobic' for stating biological reality is an imposition of a belief system that is not universally shared and should absolutely be open to debate and criticism. Taking down such videos would be a frighteningly authoritarian move.
I'm a cis Jewish woman of 67 years. I'm heartily sick of seeing transphobia in the name of 'women's rights'. The transphobic Mumsnet is organising to flood this survey with comments and to try to appear as if they are the majority. In the real world the majority of people don't misgender trans people and don't spend their lives trying to create a bigoted atmosphere. Every survey shows that women are overwhelmingly in favour of trans rights, as are all of the UK unions. Time to ban transphobia as hate speech, which is what it is.
I am a left-leaning lesbian woman in my early twenties and I hold gender critical beliefs. I hold these beliefs for a few reasons: 1) I know that it is necessary to be able to accurately describe marginalized groups (such as women and LGB people) in order to protect and advance their rights 2) I believe it is important to be able to discuss our lives and experiences as women without censor in order for us to protect each other and, most importantly, 3) I do not believe that human beings can change sex, and I believe that gender itself is a system of oppression stemming from the idea that humans should have “roles” based on their biological sex. I have so many topics I’d want to discuss on this issue, and censorship would render that aim impossible. If gender identity is true and good, a few gender critical feminists discussing it will not obscure that. Everyone should be able to discuss this issue openly, no matter what “side” they are on, as I also want to have open conversation with those who affirm trans identity.
Hate speech is the direct incitement of violence toward a targeted group of people. Women who are only asking for the right to have their own spaces and demand for language that does not steal their humanity is not hate speech. So called TERFs have never physical violence against trans identifying people. On the other hand Trans activists have actively posted and called for death and rape threats against women who refuse to affirm their choice of language. This is not fair.
Trans identifying people are also far from being oppressed. They hold some of the highest offices in politics as well as their organizations being funded by billionaires like pharmaceutical giant Pritzker family. You cannot tell me that an average woman who deserves the right to voice their honest thoughts and opinions is committing literal violence by using pronouns that other people do not like.
As a social media outlet, if you enforce censorship on speech bent toward and against certain groups of people when there is no violence involved, you are essentially siding with whichever side fills your pockets. That is not ethical. I hope you can aspire to better moral values.
Thank you
Civil debate about transgender issues should never be classed as “hate speech.” Open discourse on the topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on transgender issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going
When it comes to transgender issues, civil debate should never be considered "hate speech," and nobody should be penalized for declining to use either side's preferred language. Open discourse should be allowed as long as it doesn't descend into actual hate speech, namely statements that all members of XYZ racial, sexual, religious, gender-identity, etc. group should be killed, imprisoned, fired from their jobs, etc.
But it is not hate speech to say "no thanks" when an adult male asks you to call him "she." It's not hate speech to refer to an adult male as a man. If you don't believe men can become women, then calling him "she" is a lie, and nobody should be required to lie in order to post on Facebook.
Similarly it is not hate speech to say "no thanks" when a non-trans person asks you not to call them "cis." That word is offensive to a lot of people, but it's how trans people conceptualize people who aren't trans; it's an important part of their understanding of the world, just like using biologically accurate sex-based words is an important part of gender critical people's understanding of the world. As long as the user is not calling for all cis people (or all trans people) to be punished, shunned, imprisoned, or killed, it's not hate speech. Offensiveness is not at all the same thing as hate speech.
So let people speak. Open discourse on this particular topic is of huge importance to women’s rights, gay rights, and medical ethics, not just in the US but worldwide.
Let us speak. This debate matters.
For too long, this issue has incorrectly been characterized in the US as "Hateful Rightwing Bigots vs Far-Left Commie Perverts". I identify as neither. There are legitimate concerns about the conflict of trans ideology and women's rights, that defy one-dimensional sensationalized sloganeering. The appalling censorship of centrist and feminist opinions on this subject, cedes the issue to the loudest and most biased voices on both sides.
Free speech. Only moderate on bots. Ignore all future reports made by original complainers and keep the videos up.
Civil debate about transgender issues should never be classed as “hate speech.” Open discourse on the topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on transgender issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going.
Challenging the lie that "trans women are women" should never lead to restrictions on content or accounts. No human ever changed sex and we need to shift the debate to encompass the core issue the
"trans community" wants everyone to ignore: sexual consent. No man is allowed to see me in a state of undress without my sexual consent and I do NOT provide such consent to any man, no matter what gender identity he may claim, when I am in a sinlge-SEX space for females. Girls who are minors CANNOT consent even if they wanted to, and no woman can give consent on behalf of any other woman or girl, as sexual consent is not transferable. You all need to think about the reasons men are excluded from female spaces, and why voyeurism is not just a crime, but a sex crime. The trans activists who fought successfully for self ID policies in many jurisdictions have effectively stripped women of our right to privacy & safety in single-sex spaces. Nobody should be forbidden from complaining about this, and doing so cannot be construed as "hatred" or "bigotry" as doing so is an egregious form of gaslighting and harmful to women and girls. The fundamental fact more people need to be aware of is that when men claim they've undergone a medical "transition" (a claim not supported by facts, as cosmetic surgery on genitals never changed anyone's sex), even after taking cross-sex hormones for years they continue to commit criminal offenses in the same patterns* as all other men. We need to think about the reasons we keep all men out of female spaces and understand this must be applied to men who claim to be trans as well, or there is no longer any such thing as a female space. Stripping women and girls of safe spaces we fought for decades to provide is a huge injustice. When you censor our legitimate outrage you contribute to this injustice. Free speech is our most fundamental human right. Let women speak! *source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885%20
Arguing against males being allowed into women's changing rooms/sports/etc while still having to refer to those males as women forces people to use language that contradicts their argument. Many of us still know that male people are not women and that there are very real, unchangeable physical differences between male humans and female humans. There are also well documented statistical differences when it comes male and female behaviour. All across the globe males commit the majority of violent crime and the vast majority of sex crimes. Allowing a man to identify out of that category on the basis of his self-proclaimed gender identity, is akin to allowing any man to do the same as long as he pinky promises that he's a really nice guy. Calling someone born male a man is not hateful or abusive, and people opposed to this bizarre new belief system should be able to argue against it without being forced to use language that they deem untruthful.
Civil debate about transgender issues should never be classed as “hate speech.” Open discourse on the topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on transgender issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going.
Civil debate about "gender identity" should never be classed as hate speech. Open discourse on the topic is fundamental to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on these issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going.
People should be allowed to express opinions about the false, if mostly well-meaning, notion that human beings can change sex. The implications for medicine, crime reporting, and child safeguarding have been unforgivable. That doesn’t even touch on women’s sports, awards, scholarships, or government representation. This isn’t about hatred of people who have adopted trans identities. We simply must maintain an objective perspective on reality. Even if feelings are hurt, it is not the end of the world.
Banning negative discussion about transgender issues puts girls, women, male children and all trans people at risk.
Studies are coming out to show that trans is looking to be the next labotamy scandal.
By banning negative discussion, you are taking away the chance for people to make informed decisions, essentially silencing people from calling out a potential medical scandal. Atrofied reproductive organs, osteoarthritis, alzimimers are all very common affects of taking hormones
People who are trans deserve to know the medical risks of transitioning.
Trans women deserve to know their negative impact on women and girls. They deserve to hear, from women and girls, that they are hurting them. Without being able to speak negativly about them, women and girls are sequestered as 2nd class citizens.
Trans men deserve to know the extreem risk they take when starting testosterone.
I write this under a pseudonym due to the violent threats from ‘transgender’ activists.
Censorship of lesbians has increased exponentially online in recent years. It is no longer possible to have a group that is openly for lesbians. Lesbians who talk about not wanting to be harassed, attacked, sexually assaulted or raped by autogynephilic male fetishists are censored online. Lesbians who form their own groups online are banned. Meta is complicit in helping to destroy lesbian rights worldwide, as anyone who speaks honestly about the attacks on lesbians from transgenderists, or who talks openly about what it means to be a lesbian (being female and exclusively attracted to females) is censored, to the point where I would say that our human right to freedom of assembly and association is violated. Meta plays its role in helping to destroy online communities of lesbians. That is what Meta represents to me - censorship and support for human rights violations. As a lesbian, I avoid using Meta products now as they are anti-lesbian and their company has thrown their corporate weight into oppression. Life as a lesbian now is worse than it was 15 years ago.
Dear board,
I am a journalist and a former prominent feminist activist in Slovakia. In 2019, my career as a feminist activist in Slovakia ended when I criticized the transgender movement. Upon my criticism, I also received threats of violence and death from my former friends and activist colleagues.
Most of my feminist activism took place on Facebook where I had built a sizeable audience. However, when I used my Facebook account for criticism of the transgender movement, I soon encountered suspensions and bans. Other women in other countries who did the same told me the same thing.
I am glad to find out that Meta no longer considers "misgendering" Hate Speech or Bullying. It is important for women's and children's rights that it stays that way. We have no way to address men's violence if we have to call men women. We have no way to safeguard women's rights if we don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination.
Besides freedom of speech, speaking the truth about sex (not gender), is important for clarity. Last year's poll showed that a third of Britons don't know that trans women are biologically male. They believe a "trans woman" means "woman who is trans", in other words, what we would cal a transgender man. (link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/)
And if you count in the nonbinary community with their plural pronouns and neopronouns, the language becomes illegible. Also, the terms that trans people prefer at a given moment, changes very often. New words are created every half a year. Some of these are "woman with a transgender history", or "transgender female". If society caves to all language demands of this community, we will soon be unable to communicate.
Thank you for your consideration!
Kind regards,
Dana Vitalosova
Opposition to biological or anatomical males in women's sports and prisons (for reasons of safety, dignity, and fairness) is entirely valid and should not be categorized as hate speech. Also there needs to be a serious public debate about the ethics and efficacy of giving cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to children with psychological gender issues. That too should not be categorized as hate speech.
I think Gender ideology should be permitted to be debated.
We lack long term research and figures.
It's a very recent trend.
If it cannot be debated, it's literally tyrannical.
In 1938, lots of people in Germany thought Nazism was great. They were proven wrong. Gender ideologues might be proven wrong too.
Civil debate about transgender issues should never be classed as “hate speech.” Open discourse on the topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on transgender issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going.
If the maintenance of one group's rights (transgender people) infringes on another group's ability to defend their own rights and speak of their unique experiences, those are not rights but privileges and oppression over the second group.
Let women speak.