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
People must be free to speak the truth. Calling a "transwoman" (who is by definition male) a man is not hate speech, it is factual. Disallowing people to tell the truth, even if others are offended by it, would be extremely damaging to free speech. It would also be discriminatory against those that hold the valid, reasonable (and in the UK, legally protected) view that sex is real and meaningful.
Trans people have the right not to be discriminated against because of the fact they are trans. That does not mean that they change sex, or that they have the right to be treated as their chosen "gender" in every situation. It also doesn't mean that others have to go along with their beliefs, in the same way that we can be respectful of Christians or people of other religions without believing in their gods. Disagreeing with peoples beliefs is not harassment, it is a vital part of a well-functioning society.
There are two sexes. Men with mental issues should not be allowed to destroy women only spaces or participate in women’s.sports (effectively destroying Title IX advancements/opportunities).
Otherwise, this is America - you are free to live as you like - so long as you do not infringe upon anybody else’s rights to do likewise.
Also, whether a gender dysphoria - an actual mental disorder - patient likes it or not; nobody else should be compelled to participate in their delusion. We do not “affirm” anorexic women by telling them they are fat (when they weigh 90 lbs) and should continue binge/purge destructive behavior. That would be hateful and absurd.
It should NOT be considered Hate Speech by calling an obvious male a male. An obvious female a female. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but that isn’t the point - compelling me to participate in your delusion is tyrannical and betrays my constitutional right to Free Speech.
Trans people are a minority group whose rights are constantly under attack by people that wish them to disappear. The way in which trans people are discussed has a major impact on how they are treated. There is no rational reason for referring to, say, a trans woman as a "biological male" as everyone fully understands what a trans woman is and this only seems to claim that trans women are not only men, but deceitful ones to boot, a long standing bigoted tripe the community has fought tirelessly for decades. At a time when trans people are at risk of losing rights to people that despise them, choosing to allow open contempt for them on a website encourages discrimination and harm.
Facebook must adhere to freedom of speech principles, and allow robust debate around these issues. As Edward Murrow observed during the McCarthy era, the right to dissent is often the first right to go as nations stumbled down the route to totalitarianism.
It is an observation echoed in the US Supreme Court decision New York Times v Sullivan (1964) and it was this decision which probably saved the Civil Rights Movement.
Thus even if some might take offense at words, the greater principle of freedom of expression and free dissemination of knowledge should be adhered to. It does no one any good when contentious issues are not allowed to be debated for fear of causing offense.
My position on the matter of Gender Identity discourses is that there should be no restrictions on expression of opnions about this disputed concept and the idealogies that developed around it, which remain highly disputed and controversial even as a small number of governments and instiutions have embraced them uncritically.
As with all ideas that impact individual and group rights and protections, there should be an open and ongoing debate about how best to balance these. Social Media has been used to stifle opinions on the subject and to demonise legitmate points of view, namely in regard to the safety, privacy, dignity and opportunities of women and girls. This overreach, which included in the UK widely spread disinformation about the law, led to inevitable backlash and a number of high profile legal actions.
The United Kingdom has established in Law that the belief that sex is binary and imutable is protected speech so the notion that a private company controlling a digital town square that would infringe on or impede the expression of that right is abhorrent.
Standards of abusive language should be objective not designed to inforce particular idealogical positions and nor should mere rudeness be grounds for censorship. Calling someone a man should never be censored even if it is inaccurate or intended to be rude. Likewise, criticising a religion or set of beliefs should likewise never be censored; imposing restrictions on certain types of critique to enforce hierachies of protections is illiberal and divisive.
There is a role for 'Community Notes' to correct inaccurate information or to provide context; but the silencing of points of view, especially widely or majority held opinions, on a platform like Meta simply creates a silo in which users are being programmed by narrow sets of highly subjective ideological material. The inability to balance sets of ideas or to take a nuanced position is perfectly illustrated by the celebration of terrorist groups by ostensibly pro Palestinian young people in the West and the abuse meted out to women advocating for single sex spaces.
Social media algorithms that censor debate and prevent dissenting points of view from being expressed and heard feed the extreme intolerance many young people have to varied points of view on controversial subjects as well has their inability to analyse data and independently discern both the veracity of it or to formulate an opinion based on all available information.
The evidence that the narrowing of the Overton window as policed by social media on discussion of gender identity is resulting in harm is evidenced by the intolerance, and often violence, shown by some groups towards those who would previously be universally recognised as vulnerable such as female victims of sexual and domestic violence for the sin of wanting single sex spaces.
Gender identity is a belief not recognised by most people. Whilst individuals should be free to express their beliefs about themselves, there should never be a compulsion on another to aquiese to them. A Muslim or Jew should never be compelled to deny the existence of God nor an Athiest agree that God exists. Nobody who believes that there are two sexes and that sex cannot change should be compelled to use pronouns they do not belive in or to affirm a gender identity they do not believe in.
We must all be able to freely discuss the extent to which individual beliefs be allowed to form the basis of policy or be used to define culture. Meta plays a role in this; it either narrows the discussion fomenting the divisions between increasingly intolerant groups or it provides the platform of healthy conflict and debate.
I note that the board calls for comments on the impact of freedom expression around gender issues on transgender people, however you are omitting to consider the impact of restrictions on freedom of speech on issues pertaining to biological sex on the group of people that this typically adversely impacts, women.
Biological sex is an immutable material reality of all people regardless of any belief in the ideology of gender identity, and it is particularly important for women in particular to be able to speak clearly about biological sex in the context of things like their safety in single sex spaces, discrimination and repression qnd fairness in the female-only sports category. For far too long women’s rights campaigners have been silenced through false accusations of ‘transphobia’ couched in terms of hate speech, bullying or harassment for raising legitimate concerns about the appropriation of feminist issues by trans rights activists who’s ideology depends upon these concerns very real concerns not being heard, or being dismissed as ‘bigotry’.
Whilst we have sympathy for people who struggle with their belief that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, those of us speaking the reality of biology should not be held responsible for their discomfort with the truth. Someone’s internalised belief of their gender may not be obvious to another observer, and they certainly can’t force this belief on the reality of others. Correctly identifying somebody’s biological sex does not automatically equate to misgendering, hate speech, bullying or harassment, and there are certain issues not limited to women’s safety and fairness in sport where biological sex not gender is the relevant point of the discussion. The fact that sex is real and immutable is widely held and understood, and worthy of respect in a democratic society and therefore people must be able articulate this idea freely.
This is a sensitive, contentious issue.
Rather than quash reporting and debate we should be encouraged to engage in proper debate - not insults.
The way to do that is not through silence and verboten subjects.
We should be presented with facts and allow to express and explore how that makes us feel without resorting to insults or recieving threats, accusations of bigotry and wrong think.
Media and social media has cultivated a poor reputation.
We can no longer be assured of 'both sides' reporting and sometimes, we are seeing complete media blackouts.
Reporting has to be honest and transparent.
Look at history, look at the contemporary world, look at what is happening in Afghanistan now.
Voices must never be silenced.
Lead the way in helping us come back into the light.
The belief that people can change sex or that there is a difference between inner gender and actual sex is exactly that - a belief. It is not fact or based in any credible science. The belief that gender is not a thing distinct from sex at birth is equally valid and should be supported in equal measure. It is critically important to the principles of free speech, free thought and debate that people are able to correctly sex individuals, regardless of how those individuals see themselves. Suppression of the ability to call out violations of established boundaries set on the basis of actual sex will result in the stifling of valid debate about - and the further erosion of - sex related protections and rights in society, especially those traditionally defined around women, specifically related to sports, female only spaces and services.
I came to the debate when my friend's son transitioned. I wanted to be an ally and learn which words to avoid so not to offend. I purposely looked at both sides because balance is everything.
As a mother of 2 daughters I am now firmly against people born male, in female spaces. I have absolutely no objection to men in dresses. Once they are not hurting anyone, everyone on this planet should have the right of free expression.
However, that's the crux of the trans debate. Men in dresses using their entitlement to invade women's sports, bathrooms, refuges, prisons etc.
They argue they're not safe in male spaces. Male violence is not for women to eradicate, especially since we are the target of most of it (there are far more battles fought behind closed doors than in the streets).
The argue they are women so they should be in our sports despite their male advantage. It is not for women athletes to step aside to validate the ego of a failed male athlete. Blood, sweat and tears go into sport at every level but women get bullied into silent acceptance just so they can continue to take part.
Despite what the trans community thinks, being female is not just about having breasts, vaginas, wombs, and a particular set of hormones. A neovagina is not a vagina. It's a pouch. A wound. A castration. But, way beyond the physical, nature and nurture both play a huge role in our psychology, our inherent femaleness. No amount of surgery or chemicals can achieve that. That is why we are called bigots, terfs, transphobes. The anger directed at women is because deep down, they know that.
Why is the trans side absolutely closed to debate? No discussion. No reasoning. Accept them as women or be utterly damned.
Well, I don't jump up and down about it online but, I'll be damned.
I'm here for young girls, the girls yet to be born. For the women, now and in the future, who suffer trauma at the hands of male entitlement and need safe, single sex spaces in their often vain attempts to heal. I'm here for the friends, family, colleagues who aren't in social media but are appalled at the direction society is going.
What man has the right to take from women because he "feels" nature gave him the wrong body? Therapy, not surgery. If you can't accept yourself, why do you insist women accept an altered version of you, whether you "pass" or not?
Look at the version of woman that trans recreate. There are no hijabs. There is no decorum. It's mini skirts, low cut tops, fishnets. That speaks of a pornographic influence. Is that all we are to men?
MSM looks at the trans debate from the male perspective only. Be different. Only then will you understand the wrath females who oppose the ideology endure.
Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, it is a belief most people don't hold.
Gender identity is meaningless, irrelevant and offensive to many and incredibly harmful to impressionable kids.
Men of any gender identity should not be using female single sex spaces or competing in female categories of sport. Censoring posts and language around this topic is a big part of the problem.
The info is out there on other platforms, you will continue to lose users if you censor factual discussion.
The suppression of discussion around gender identity has made it very difficult to discuss both the rights of women and the safety of children in regards to gender medicine.
I believe in free speech even for views I personally find abhorrent. I always say “better out than in” as regards opinions, as at least you then know what & who you are dealing with. With regard to the gender ideology debate/misgendering, I firmly believe people should be able to say how they view someone, without being forced to lie. It is usually very clear the sex of someone, if someone identifies as different to their natal sex then that is fine but, they can’t expect others to be forced to agree with them. My best female friend has often been mistaken for a bloke but she has never got upset about it or felt the need to post on social media. There is no law that gives someone the right not to be offended, thankfully. Social media must uphold free speech. If someone holds offensive views then debate, don’t ban, which just sends these people underground.
There is already enough transphobic (mistakenly called "gender critical" when in fact it's only critical of basic human rights) content online and I fail to see how making it EASIER to publish and defend such content would improve public discourse. Trans people are a tiny minority who have been the focus of a disproportionate campaign of hatred that is simply not justifiable on any ethical grounds, not to mention often they are a scapegoat to take attention away from poor political decisions and other issues that are the real reason for social ills. Would you be considering to "relax the rules" on racism? Cis homophobia? Why is transphobia different to you from these examples? The only obvious reason is that you don't think trans people are really people deserving of basic dignity like everyone else, and you're prioritizing revenue from rage bait nonsense or perhaps want to advertise some known hate groups. That is not in any sort of public interest. It is worrying and deeply unjust that in 2024 you're looking to justify the further exclusion and dehumanization of a small vulnerable group that's just a convenient target for opportunistic hatred. This has real consequences such as people committing suicide because they don't feel they will ever be accepted or have a meaningful, decent life. But perhaps if the goal here is to eradicate or at least shut up trans people and embolden discriminatory narratives that is an intended outcome. Again, if you're going to "relax the rules" on transphobia then explain what it is that makes trans people so uniquely subhuman in compared to other minorities you would never suggest to make more easily targeted.
Biological sex is determined by chromosomes (XX for females and XY for males) and is a fundamental and unchangeable aspect of human identity. Hormone therapy and surgery procedures carry significant physical risks and may not always alleviate the psychological distress (gender dysphoria) that some individuals experience. It is unethical to perform irreversible procedures on minors, whose identities may still be developing. In areas like education, sports, and public facilities, prioritising transgender individuals' needs infringes on the rights of others, particularly women and girls. Endorsing transgender identities requires accepting subjective truths that contradict observable reality (i.e. biological sex). Legal changes to accommodate transgender individuals would have consequences for others, parental rights, freedom of speech, and the redefinition of sex and gender in law.
In a free society we have the right to debate these issues, to have our voices heard and to challenge heterodoxy.
Neither of these videos harmed individuals. Neither video incited targeted harassment of an individual. I don’t doubt that some trans people don’t like them, or found them upsetting, but this is not a reason to suppress valid discussion about the impact of male people who identify as women on women’s use of public spaces and women’s sports.
“No debate” doesn’t work, and is likely driving a reduction in support for trans people by the wider public.
More generally, restricting discussion of an issue that affects 51% of the population seems an odd commercial decision. I have stopped using Facebook and Instagram because of the latter’s actions to ban accounts from artists who are critical of some actions by trans activists. I don’t necessarily agree with either the artists or the activists - but the silencing is sinister. I am just one person, and my accounts were tiny; I am under no illusions that my presence or absence is of any interest to Meta - but I know of many others who are quietly disengaging for the same reason. When people feel their speech is restricted they will leave. It is interesting that your case description expresses concern for those who perceive they have been bullied/harassed but no concern for those who have been reported vexatiously, and who have had their accounts - in some cases essential for livelihood - deleted for expressing the view that male people, however they identify, should not compete in women’s or girl’s sports.
Gender and the debate around single-sex services and trans women in women's sports is an important debate to have. Not enough people know about the issues and ramifications as the mainstream media have hidden a lot of it. Yes, these issues are newsworthy and it isn't automatically hateful to talk about them in public as women's and children's safety is important.
Facebook should ensure that women talking about our biological reality, in other words that we are female and our lives are shaped by this, is not considered hate speech. Posts saying women are female, and males should stay out of our sports and spaces, is not hate speech. If sex is also a protected characteristic under Facebook’s hate speech policy, then you need to protect women from sex discrimination by allowing us to talk about this modern assault on our rights.
Comments shouldn't be shut down because of people stating what they believe to be true eg what sex somebody is. Things which some people find unpleasant should be allowed if they are what the speaker believes to be true. In general I wish the level of debate would be better without getting personal, name calling etc.
Comments should be shut down if they are threatening or inciting potential aggression.
Meta should allow discussion of trans issues without censoring these as "hate speech". These issues affect us all, women, children, gay, lesbian and bisexual people as well as trans-identified and intersex people. Laws and customs are being changed on a daily basis, undemocratically, without genuine community consultation, in accordance with a belief system (gender identity ideology) which is highly contentious, not based on reputable science and not shared by the majority of citizens.
There are multiple rights conflicts in regard to what are described as trans rights vs the hard fought-for rights of women and homosexual/bisexual people and in a democracy, these conflicts should be up for debate.
In addition, medical procedures are being performed on minors and young people that are not evidence-based but instead ideology-based, which inflict irreversible harms, and this phenomenon should also be up for debate.
Censorship is no way to ensure rational analysis and discussion of any question, or to win hearts and minds. Arguably it creates only cynicism, mistrust and polarisation, hardening feelings on both sides. Democracy is supposed to be based on free speech and free debate. Assuming that because someone disagrees with a contentious statement such as "transwomen are women" they must be "hateful" is bizarre and absurd. Labelling opposing views as "hate" is simply a way to intimidate and silence anyone who dares diverge from the prevailing narrative, thus enforcing conformity through public shaming. There is nothing "progressive" about forcing beliefs on people and silencing criticism, as anyone who studies the history of authoritarian regimes will know.
It is sometimes said that 'politics is downstream from culture.' But in the case of the transgender rights movement, this is definitely not the case, as demonstrated by various opinion polls showing that around 80% do not share the values of the transgender movement. It is a deeply unpopular movement that has been forced on the people - on women in particular - without discussion, consultation nor our consent.
Banning speech on this political topic largely impacts women. It is women - adult human females - whose political speech has been unfairly censored by branding it 'hateful', 'bullying' and 'harassment'. I consider this to be a form of discrimination against women on the basis of sex.
It has been my experience that transgender activists are in fact the ones doing the bullying and harassing. I know this from having run a public Facebook page on the topic for several years. I also ran a private Facebook group that was infiltrated by a transgender activist who took screenshots and posted them on Twitter in order to demonise members of the group and attempt to have them fired or disciplined in their workplace. This is harassment. If you check the website terfisaslur.com you will see many instances of threats of violence from transactivists and trans identified males towards women.
For years now, Meta has been out of touch with public sentiment on this topic. Time to update your policies.