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
I don't think this content should be considered as hate speech or bullying but rather a public safety issue for biological women. Having biological males share a changing area with biological women is a recipe for disaster and this video helps to show it has become a serious concern in our culture. If I understand correctly, the young woman filming this video already suffered an injury from playing a sport against a biological male who identified as a woman and can see why she feels unsafe changing in the bathroom with him.
Speaking the truth is not bigotry, it’s not hate speech, misgendering or anything to be banned in fact. It is the basis of a functioning and free society. Sex is immutable, it is biological reality. Banning the ability to say that a man is a man and cannot be a woman and vice versa will put the safety of women and girls in significant danger because it will allow biological men to encroach on single sex spaces. Language forms the basis of all of our laws and sex based rights. If language is confused with incorrect definitions, then our laws and rights as females will be violated. We will no longer be safe anywhere and many users (male and female) will have no choice but to leave social media platforms that punish people for speaking truth.
Women cannot live fully in the world without having the freedom of speech to speak factually about sex. Your plan would be a dystopian attack on the freedom of speech of more than half the world's population as well as the women and girls in your own families. Do you really want the next generation of girls not to have the freedom to speak about issues around men, however they identify, which affect female people? This would be the first time women have been banned from speaking their mind on issues around the sexed body which affect them deeply. At a time when male violence against females is on the rise everywhere, do you really want to be part of that violence by ripping out our tongues?
I am writing to encourage the board to maintain Meta as a platform where people can speak openly and freely about biological sex. The board must provide protection for their female customers to speak about the reality their biological sex plays in their lives and how the inclusion of biological men in their intimate spaces & sports disadvantage them, makes them less safe and results in sex-based discrimination. The board must realize that most of their customers do not recognize gender identity or gender ideology as deserving of a position in society that allows it to supercede women's sex-based rights & protections. Please to not place individual beliefs about identity over the biological reality of women.
The two posts in this case contain content related to the sociopolitical issue of persons who identify their gender differently than their biological gender and enter spaces that are exclusive to one biological gender. The entrry of a person of a biological gender opposite from the biological gender exclusively associated with the settings of locker room and sports competion breaks longstanding norms that enable the safety and protection of the female biological gender.
Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies should not censor this content which expresses the concern that norms providing for the safety and protection of the female biological gender are being broken by individuals who have chosen to mentally or psychologically depart from their biological gender. In contrast to the assertion of those who raised issue to the oversight board, the parties harassed are those who have had to abandon their expectation of safety and protection stemming from entering a space assigned to one biological gender. Being able to express dismay for this in online public space is important and should not be censored.
Meta should provide protection for the individuals who have engaged in spaces associated with a biological gender that is different from their biological gender on the basis of an individual's request that the content be removed. The concern being that if the content displays their individual likeness in a manner that makes them identifiable and they did not consent to being filmed/photo for web then their right to privacy is being breached and should be restored, as it should be for any other person.
“Because if you cannot describe reality, how the hell are you supposed to defend your rights?” -Magdalen Berns
Sex is immutable. Gender is a set of stereotypes. Body dysmorphia is a mental illness* and autogynephilia is a fetish*. Neither group should be protected from free speech and the biological reality we all live. Meta’s attempt at silencing people is distressing and proves why it’s important to remain truthful in the face of a platform supporting lies.
* https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/body-dysmorphic-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353938
* https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
― George Orwell, 1984
If Meta prohibits adolescents and grown up from mentioning biological sex og it's pronoun you will:
- try to hide reality for example when it comes to criminals who suddenly after arrest or while in jail changes sex of purely opportunistic reasons.
- you will be trying to hide, that even though a man is self ID'ing as woman you have to, in certain circumstances, trust your eyes
- you try to diminish the importance of biology in a world where biology plays a big role in pharma, statistics, jobs, everyday challenges and more.
- you will be a laughing stock in five years time. Your image is badly damaged now. Will be worse.
Please do not ban or make it impossible for anyone to correctly identify someone's sex on Meta! The distinction between male and female is a well established natural and biological phenomenon understood by anyone who has ever lived for millenia and is only being questioned now due to the emergence of gender as a social construct. Referring to someone's sex isn't hate speech as it refers to an immutable scientific fact and is necessary to enable the discussion of medical issues, inequality and oppression of females by males. There need to be safe spaces for females from males as as well as separate such spaces for trans people due to the fact that most violent acts are committed by males - the discussion of this cannot be banned or categorised as hate speech. The fact that this even has to be raised as an issue is an extremely worrying development for females as it seeks to silence and oppress them from seeking help or justice in many unavoidable and frightening situations imposed on them by males. Furthermore, I cannot see how such a ban could be enacted or policed without extreme restrictions on the right to free speech as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not hate speech. The pronouns he/she/they and the words woman/female/girl and man/male/boy can never be hateful. None of these words are insults. It is preposterous and dangerous to our freedom of speech to prevent people from speaking these words or for a social media platform to determine when and who these words can be used in reference to.
What is getting lost in this conversation is this: transgender people have rights just like anybody else. But they don’t have rights that are superior to everybody else. That’s the common narrative that’s been pushed and elevated in our current society by a very vocal and radical minority. Here’s an example:
A Kappa Kappa Gamma women’s sorority in Wyoming is currently experiencing a situation where a male claiming to be a female has become a member. He has done nothing to change his appearance or physique. He shares all spaces with the females including showers and bathrooms. Imagine the fear, anxiety and disruption to the sorority girls lives because of this action. They live in a constant state of fear and discomfort. But this is supposed to be good and supporting transgender rights according to the narrative. What about the sorority girls rights? Apparently, they are subservient to the rights of one transgender man. So the rights of 50 girls are less than the rights of one transgender male. Common sense tells us this is ludicrous. And, it’s demeaning and degrading to women.
Regarding the gender identity videos in question: the real principal here being promoted is forced speech. Proponents of the transgender movement are claiming their rights are higher than everybody’s First Amendment right to free speech. I have every right to say that I don’t believe males can become females. Someone can disagree with me, but they can’t force me to say that’s untrue. Yet that’s what allies of this movement are demanding to be the case. Demanding forced speech. Demanding compliance. They claim they are being misgendered, and because of this, everyone must adhere to their demands including how we refer to them. This is an obvious violation of the First Amendment. But this group is insinuating their rights are superior to First Amendment rights and we should just get used to it.
Pulling videos such as this off the platform is censorship. People have a right to voice their displeasure with these kinds of injustices to women (the track and field video) just as the transgender community has the right to voice their displeasure with people who don’t believe in their cause. One side can’t be more offended than the other and thus control behavior and speech.
I urge the board not to fall into this trap and continue to let all voices speak out on this issue.
No more gender discriminatory comment police needed, Hate crimes are murder and rape, not speech which is protected by our First Amendment. The confusion regarding gender identity belongs to a select few in our population and the rest of us who know who we are should be able to live and let live, speaking "our truth".
Just stop going down this insane path.
This kind of authoritarianism always has unintended consequences that end up causing terrible harm. Meta should not become authoritarian this way. It’s a terribly slippery slope from this proposal to the silencing of any ideas that do not please the ruling class. Disagreement is healthy in a society. Debate is important and necessary. Discussions are the only way forward. You can’t change minds by force. This will backfire on you, I am positive.
I abhor the censorship and free speech of any person, however I have witnessed the silencing and cancelling of mainly women, feminist women, and more specifically, women who advocate for protection of single sex spaces, child safeguarding, and protecting free speech. I have seen many accounts get shut down, censored, restricted; again almost all women advocating for women. This is a disgrace and a threat to human rights everywhere. When women are ostracized for speaking plain facts and telling the truth, we are silenced. This is unacceptable.
Gaines and others who express concerns about safety in this matter of men identifying as women are not using hate speech. To express concerns contrary to others is not hate speech but a disagreement in views. To label disagreement as hate speech is to shutdown ideas and in this case require others to accept what they believe as untrue and, not only that, dangerous.
If a male is a male even though he identifies as female, it does NOT make him a female. It makes him a male IDENTIFYING as female. This is really a question as always of the deterioration of women's rights, such as they are. Most transfemales can do physical damage to most women simply because of the average difference in size and muscle mass male to female. This world so despises women, it would rather have women have NO space where they are not at physical risk from a male just so any male gets exactly what he wants how he wants it because MEN of any kind in this world have value and women of any kind have little to none. There is not one country in the world where women are equal. The world is stacked against half the planet and is getting worse and we can't give woman/girls a safe physical space so the question is WHY? The answer is power and control. HALF of the planet fills a unique role that no matter what MANKIND will do, it cannot effectively fill the role of safely bringing a child to term. Men who are larger and have carefully structured EVERYTHING in the world to their advantage still attempt to take what little is left to women, not even a safe physical space is afforded us. The real question is what is wrong with a world society that bullies and harasses the other half of the planet that is intragal to the continuation of the species making life unbearable for that half??? The ones who harass transwomen are their fellow MEN, not women. MEN have made life virtually unbearable for half the planet yet they are still not happy. What is the matter with MEN that this is it is all they can do with this precious gift that WOMEN have given them but destroy those that gave them birth and make their lives a misery. If you MEN hate real women this much, please please please just leave us alone and let us have our own safe spaces and a country where we could be treated like a real PERSON, what a dream. To live in a country, be physically safe from men and be treated with respect and possess real leagle rights just because you are a person. It will never happen because men own everything and lack any honor or respect for ANYONE including themselves. We wonder why this world is damaged beyond repair, male egos trying to do in their own twisted way things far beyond their reach but without any concern for their ego/actions or repercussions. Well men, you finally got everything that you wanted, you own and rule the world yet your still not happy. I am 65 and am glad I will be leaving this disaster that men have made, because I don't think it will ever change. MEN simply don't seem able to play nicely with anyone, including their fellow men in dresses. In your brilliance guys, you've terrorized a very necessary half the planet and have ruined the only home humans have that I will be glad to be leaving. With all this, you guys are still all asleep with your ever God like (?) dick in your hand and you don't even rule over that.
I believe in free speech which includes the identity of males and females.
Men do not belong in women's sports or in women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
Men who identify as women are still men.
regardless how hurt someone may be by being reminded of their truth of their sex, since the stereotypes and tight social expectations that come along with them can feel hindering it is more important to overcome stereotypes and take pride in reality. Sex is unchangeable in humans, no matter how much may try to surgically and medically alter one’s body we remain the sex we are born as. I would like to think that we pride our society of truth and reason over hurt feelings.
NOTE: I see that in this submission form you do not require a name as mandatory, but in the rules for comments, Section 5.1 you do. I believe this discrepancy is deceptive, as it allows many who do not wish to be identified to submit comments, but allows a convenient, less visible excuse to discard comments by those people who do not wish to be identified. This policy disadvantages commenters who may not be comfortable, safe, or secure in providing comments publicly *due to* the socio-political climate surrounding the cases in question.
• Before anything else, we are all humans. The single most important element that distinguishes subcategorization within the category of human is ‘sex’. While sex is a neutral characteristic in itself, and ‘female’ and ‘male’ are reproductive roles within a sexually reproducing, sexually dimorphic species, the development as/of/within either a female or male body is fundamental in how each individual experiences the world. Sex in humans is innate (something we are born with/as) and it is immutable (with current biology and technology, one can never go from producing ova to producing sperm).
• Female people, as a group, have needs and risks that are distinct from the needs and risks of male people, as a group, due to these biological differences. Female people are globally oppressed, restricted, and controlled, and are held to different standards/expectations than male people because of their physical bodies (e.g., capability as a group to gestate and birth young and associated biological impacts of that capability, or as the target of physical/sexual attention/attraction/aggression, especially by male people), and in current societies, have distinct expectations put upon them from the moment their parents learn their sex.
• Note: Male people have different expectations, permissions, restrictions, etc.
• To enable female people to fully and equally build, govern, and participate in society **requires that we acknowledge that these different risks and needs exist and acknowledge where these risks and needs originate.** On a more meta level, we need to understand who benefits from and who is disadvantaged by changes to our ability to clearly communicate about these risks and needs.
• That is, we need to be able to talk about an issue to collectively recognize that it is an issue. We need to be able to talk about an issue to find its root cause, if we can. We need to be able to talk about an issue to identify solutions to the issue, if we deem solutions necessary. We need to be able to talk clearly and plainly about an issue to prioritize and balance the risks and needs of varying groups. And we need to be able to talk about an issue to determine who benefits and who is disadvantaged by having all of that previous discussion.
• By stating that misgendering is a bullying offense, Meta would actively prioritize a point of view that discourages or disallows the ability to speak about an issue, would restrict users and actively shape discussions, and would preference certain users belief systems and grant additional privileges to shape discourse in a way that is not enforced in other topic areas.
o Specifically, it will prioritize a point of view that discourages or disallows the ability to speak about issues in a framing that is necessary for many, especially female people, to adequately express the fundamental rationale for their point of view.
o It will shape communication and the ability of people to discuss their needs, wants, and risks within their own framing/frame of reference or in a way that is clear and potentially necessary for them.
o It will frame conversation top-down, through censorship, rather than through organic consensus.
o Meta would actively prioritize a point of view that encourages one’s self-perception to supersede the perception of others, when others do not necessarily have insight into that self-perception. It disadvantages a person for perceiving another, and discussing that person, in a way that another person does not agree with. It mandates that people speak of others how they see themselves rather than through an external lens, which potentially requires people to deny their own sense of perception.
o Meta would actively prioritize a point of view that prioritizes external indicators as indicative of an internal perception, or of how one should be addressed. It requires others to guess based on potentially stereotypical trappings in a way that could cause misgendering regardless.
o It preferences a view that specific language on a neutral topic (a person’s sex) is inherently objectionable or harmful if not discussed in a way desired by the subject of discussion, and in a way that no other neutral and widespread characteristic is policed.