Description du cas
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.
Commentaires
Transgenderism is a manifestation of a diagnosis called Gender Dysphoria. This illness is poorly understood and may represent a collection of symptoms of different illnesses, such as Dissociative Identity Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Persons with Gender Dysphoria may also be gay or lesbian persons who are unable to cope with their sexual orientation. Persons cannot change biological sex. Male to female transgender persons retain male bodies. Discussing these facts is part of intellectual discussion in a free society. Discussing women's safety v. the preferences of female-identifying males is important for reaching the truth. Men's rights do not trump women's rights. Meta should support science and established clinical opinions as well as intellectual debate. Showing preference for ideology, cult beliefs, delusional thinking and male privilege is inappropriate.
Speak Up for Women NZ oppose a review looking at 'misgendering' and 'hate speech' in an attempt to enforce a ban on 'misgendering'. It is unreasonable to prevent people from speaking the truth and referring to biological reality. To suppress free speech and the truth in order to appease an overly fragile section of the community is oppressive and dictatorial. This is fundamentally unfair and, in New Zealand anyway, is not backed up by law. We do not have hate speech laws in New Zealand, and we continue to fight for free speech rights. Social media is not the place to enforce subjective rules on the words used by people around the world. #becausesexmatters
Public spaces on the internet should abide by the same free speech laws of public spaces offline. Those asking for the fair treatment and protection of women and girls, especially feminists, should be a protected minority and should not be silenced by any other minority, including trans people.
No one should be forced to lie. Sex is immutable. Censoring civil, accurate content is wrong and it's chilling that this is even a possibility. 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. This is a non-partisan issue. 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. Lost in all the noise is that reality is under attack.
Mark Zuckerberg recently apologized for working with the federal government to censor speech. Now, this oversight board is proposing censoring people from saying what the vast majority of people on the planet believe today and have always believed and forcing people to say things that their eyes and common sense know are lies. It is beyond ironic for Meta to label as “bullying” or “harassing” using language the vast majority of people on the planet have used throughout history. Considering Meta’s monopoly over people’s abilities to share ideas, Meta is literally bullying people into using language that the vast majority of people on the planet 100% do not want to use. Meta is the bully! Please stop bullying the vast majority of the users of your product.
It is not hateful or transphobic to state biological reality, that is, someone’s sex. To coerce, force, or shame someone to use improper pronouns, against one’s will, is an infringement upon their freedom and expression, and plainly irrational and absolutely absurd. Stop the insanity.
1. The censoring of correct sexing, labeling it as "misgendering", encroaches on people's freedom of speech. just as "trans" and "queer" individuals are allowed to "gender each other correctly", we should be allowed to freely express our opinion and sex them correctly. I must add that the banning of so-called transphobic slurs, while allowing words like cis which are often used in a derogatory manner by TRAs, is unfair and needlessly biased for supposedly "free" platforms. Gender Critical rhetoric is thought to be "hate speech", yet Transsexual rhetoric is allowed and dissidents are easily shut down through unrestrained mass flagging and false reports.
Trans people are allowed to type out hateful, threatening messages of any kind. There are many examples of trans people threatening Gender Critical or "Transsexual Exclusionary Radical Feminists" of rape and other forms of sexual abuse/torture. This is never checked by platforms, specially facebook and Instagram.
Trans people are the biggest harassers in platforms, yet nothing is done about them for the sake of "tolerance"; one sided tolerance that's not given to us gender criticals.
I propose the unbanning of "transphobic" slurs and to allow what is known as "correct sexing", and beg of everyone to be as harsh on trans individuals and their allies as they'd be on the opposing side. To take more seriously threats made by trans individuals and ban them for threatening things like rape (which has been done countless time) against others.
I write regarding 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.
Freedom of expression
Freedom of belief and expression are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international and national covenants. These human rights are the cornerstone of democracy. Without them there is no democracy. It depends on people being able to express their beliefs and opinions freely.
A myth has arisen recently that freedom of speech does not extend to speech which distresses, offends or wounds others. This view is totally at odds with the human right enshrined in international law. Freedom of speech must encompass ALL speech*.
In the first place, whether a comment offends someone is purely subjective. There is no concrete, objective way of telling whether a comment will offend anyone or many people. What words are considered offensive change from place to place and era to era as well as context. In Turkey, apparently, the word 'cucumber' is impolite, since it has come to be a synonym for male organ. Observant Jews do not use the name of God. Meta is international. The only way it can guarantee that certain words or expressions are offensive is to make very broad categories indeed. The broadness of such categories and the subjectivity inherent in the concept of offensiveness in itself make considerable inroads on the right to freedom of speech.
Second, there is no right not to be offended. All sorts of things may offend someone or other. Again, it is a recent idea that an individual should be able to go through life without being offended or wounded by some speech. This is totally unrealistic. Life includes robust debate and casual discourse. Removal of possible offence could only be achieved by placing very rigorous restrictions on the freedom of all fellow citizens. Hearing comments which may offend is a normal part of life and must be put up with - or the hearer must take steps to remove themselves from any situation in which they may hear such comments.
Third, who is to determine what is offensive? There is considerable danger in Meta being unduly influenced by vocal lobby groups or activists. If so, Meta would become an organ of such groups and individuals and lose any claim to impartiality or the pursuit of its own agendas. If language is to be screened and censored, on what basis will decisions be made? How transparent will be the processes? What will be the consequences? Meta will have to guarantee that it is assessing language which offends all social groups, not merely the most vocal or powerful. Will comments which offend single parents, Hispanics, blacks, creationists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, environmentalists, women, men, members of various ethnic groups, homosexuals, heterosexuals, immigrants, adherents of a multitude of religions, disabled people etc be banned? Or only speech which offends some specific groups?
Fourth, one must not forget the 'turn off' option. Not all speech is inoffensive to everyone. There is a great deal of obscenity, for instance, in many modern movies and even television shows. There is also much discussion and description of contentious or potentially distressing topics. But it is generally acknowledged that people who do not want to hear about or be confronted by such things, should simply avoid those movies and shows. The same is true of a platform such as Meta. Its open nature means that there is much material on feeds and user pages which may be offensive to someone or some groups. It has always been accepted that people should simply exercise their right to 'turn off' such material. In fact, Meta has provide 'Hide' and 'Block' facilities specifically to assist people in doing so. Meta should continue to do so, and alert users to the existence of these options. In this way the democratic essential of freedom of speech is maintained, and Meta avoid favouritism and inequality in its treatment of different groups, while users may insulate themselves from offensive language.
*There are limited exceptions, for instance speech which incites others to commit a crime. It should be noted that typically, law-givers and courts have always been careful to make these exceptions as narrow as possible. This in itself recognises the importance of the freedom.
The rights of transgender people
It must be said at the outset that when the gay rights movement began, homosexual people suffered under a range of disabilities and discriminatory treatment in both law and practice. That is no longer the case and due to the efforts of a generation of homosexual activists, gay and lesbian people now enjoy the same human rights and legal protections of the rest of the community.
The same is true of transgender people. They have benefited from the long campaign for gay rights and minority rights in general. There is no human right enshrined in law that the community is entitled to, which transgender people do not equally enjoy. The phrase 'trans rights' is frequently used, but there is little specificity as to what rights trans people wish for that they do not already have. Trans people have the right to freedom of speech and belief, of assembly, the right to housing, education and medical treatment, the right to work, to receive a fair trial, to not be enslaved, etc. It is not in fact alleged or suggested that transgender people do not have these rights. In addition, they are included in the protections against discrimination contained in national legislation. It is therefore difficult to understand what the rights alluded to, are.
Access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events are often mentioned. There is no existing human right to either of these. It is well accepted that people should be able to participate in sport. Nothing in the traditional division of sports, especially elite and professional sports, into various categories, negates this. The legal right to participate in sport does not, however, entail a guarantee that every individual will be able to participate in every sport at every level. Much sport is by nature competitive. It is well understood that people will not be able to participate in every level or every competition. The basis of eligibility for a particular sport or category is that competitors will have a level playing field and that like will compete with like. Therefore there are amateur and professional leagues, age and weight categories, abled and disabled categories, and the most basic of all, male and female categories. These have existed since the beginning of women's participation in sports, because it is evident to everyone that even allowing for variation among individuals, men are bigger, heavier, faster and stronger than women, and for men to compete against women would deny women the level playing field that is the essential basis of fairness. Like must compete against like. Sport is a matter of physical characteristics. It is physical bodies which play and compete. Hence single-sex sports.
Detailed scientific studies have recently provided the evidential proof for what has always been known, ie the physical superiority of men and boys over women and girls. This has even been quantified in various ways. Single-sex sports must therefore be retained. To abandon them would be to mandate unfairness, an uneven playing field in which women would be at a constant disadvantage. It would be, in fact, to prevent women's participation in sport. A few examples will show this:
The men's Tour de France is run over 21 stages; the women's over 8.
The world record (2018) in weightlifting for the clean and jerk in the men's 64k division is 187.5 kg and the women's 63k division is 147 kg.
The world record for the 800 m sprint is 1:40.91 for men and 1:53.43 for women.
The world record for the high jump is 2.39 m for men and 2.06 m for women
and so on.
Additionally, in team sports, there are considerable safety implications for mixed sports, especially in body contact sports like football and even in basketball, volleyball etc. The risk of injury to women from playing against larger, heavier, stronger players is high.
To abandon single-sex sports would be to effect a serious breach of the human rights of women, since it would in fact deny them participation in sport. This must not be allowed to happen.
When disabled people began to want to participate in sport, they were not obliged to play against abled athletes. The level playing field had to be maintained. A new and very successful category, that of para sport and paralympics, was created. People who identify as a different gender from their biological sex are currently able to participate freely in sports in their biological category. If, however, they do not wish to do so, clearly a new division must similarly be created for them. Some sports authorities are already planning new divisions to accommodate such people. These may be open or mixed leagues, or separate leagues for transgender people. In this way, as with para sports, fairness can be maintained. If there is no like competing with like, no level playing field, then sports participation is denied to the physically weaker players. Younger, lighter and less experienced people will be excluded from participation in sport. In practice, this means that all sports competitions will be the sole province of adult men. Women and youngsters will be excluded.
Access to single-sex spaces is also something that has been taken for granted since time immemorial. Tribal cultures frequently place great emphasis on single-sex activities including religious practices. In Western cultures there have always been separate spaces for men and for women as well as mixed spaces. Clearly, this separateness is of considerable importance. There are multiple reasons for this.
First, there are activities specifically related to the different physiology of females and males. Females menstruate and require facilities connected to this. In many cultures men are excluded from anything to do with childbirth and breastfeeding. These are women's realm and women and girls require designated spaces to undertake these specifically female activities. This is firstly because of the intimate nature of the activities, and secondly because of the vulnerability of women. They are especially at risk and therefore especially require safety and security while performing these actions. They may also require the assistance of other women - people with similar bodies, and therefore experienced, knowledgeable and non-threatening - to perform them.
Second is the issue of privacy. Typically, single-sex spaces are dedicated to activities of an intimate and highly personal nature, involving the sexual organs. They are also activities during which people are vulnerable. People withdraw from public spaces to perform them. They do not want to be overlooked. They feel at a disadvantage. There are unattractive and embarrassing aspects. The most common activities which require privacy are toileting. In Western culture this is carried out well apart, and on a single-sex basis. It is not only women who want single-sex spaces for toilets; men, too, prefer to be in the company of men only in toilets.
Women use single-sex spaces for activities other than toileting. They adjust their clothing, purchase menstrual products, wash, apply make-up, etc. They go there to cry when distressed or upset. These are all activities they want privacy for. They are entitled to such privacy. Privacy affords dignity, and being able to live with dignity is a human right.
Third is safety and security. Women and girls are commonly, even routinely, the objects of sexual and physical assault. Their attackers are almost invariably men and boys. Statistics are horrifying:
In the USA:
One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives.
91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female.
One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18.
96% of people who sexually abuse children are male.
In Australia:
1 in 5 women experience sexual violence.
1 in 3 women experience physical violence.
On average, 1 woman is killed every 9 days by a current or former partner.
1 in 2 women (53%) has experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime.
98% of sex offenders apprehended by police are male.
It is apparent that women and girls are frequently subjected to sexual harassment, assault and rape. It is a stark fact that women are in urgent need of means of escape. Single-sex spaces are the go-to resort for women and girls fleeing or avoiding encounters with predatory men. It is a truism that women and girls use single-sex toilets, rest rooms and change rooms as havens of safety. They are frequently the single place where these females can escape their predators. If single-sex spaces are removed, the huge percentage of abused women will have nowhere at all to go. In fact, mixed-sex spaces will be more dangerous, since the perpetrator may be able to attack in relative privacy. From being places of refuge, toilets and change-rooms will become places of more extreme danger. Women may well become afraid to use them. On this basis alone, single-sex spaces must be retained everywhere.
These comments have been aligned largely to Western culture. However, it is important to note that for Muslims and for some other cultures, single-sex divisions are of paramount importance. This tends to be overlooked and cannot be emphasized enough. Men and women may only mix in specific circumstances. There is frequently a strong barrier between women and unrelated men; for instance women must not touch unrelated men, or even expose their faces to them. Without single-sex sports and single-sex spaces, women from such cultures are totally denied the possibility of exercising their human rights to education, to health care and to participation in sport. Without the assurance of being able to access single-sex toilets and rest-rooms, such women cannot even attend shopping centres or other community spaces and events. It is obvious that the removal of single-sex spaces and sports is in practice a form of clear discrimination against Muslim and other women whose cultures prohibit mixed-sex activities. And that is a serious breach of their human rights.
There is a single message from everything I have said above: single-sex sports and spaces exist because they afford participation, safety, security and privacy to women and girls. They have existed throughout history and across cultures because the division is based on fundamental physical realities. To remove single-sex sports and spaces would be to erode women's quality of life and fundamental human rights. The most oppressed group in the world - women - would be further oppressed. If special facilities are needed by transgender people, let them be created. Advancing the human rights of one group cannot be done by erasing the rights of another.
So the Board wants comments on "freedom of expression on 'gender identity' issues" but only as it impacts the rights of 'transgender people'?
Meta is so brutally far over the line into protecting 'transgender people' that the result is incessant bullying and harassment of women trying to hold onto our rights! Our rights to privacy as women and girls, to body integrity free from sexual assault as women and girls, to our-sex-only sports teams and scholarships and shelters for the battered and prisons! The data exists: adding biological males to these settings has resulted in physical injury, sexual assault, and even death for the women and girls rightly there! Feminists have been compiling this evidence for years, and there have been groups on Facebook tabulating the truths of placing biological males in female spaces during this time. The numbers of assaults, and the level of violence involved against women and girls, are astounding!
Women telling the truth of basic biology, that there are two sexes, one with small gametes and one with large, have been effectively silenced ("banned") for months at a time, and have had their posts deleted. Threats of permanent banning follow quickly.
Physical harm to women and girls, rape and other forms of sexual assault, unwanted impregnation, and more ... are now being compared to the hurt feelings of being "misgendered"? What about women's and girls' rights to our own speech, to not be bullied and harassed for telling provable, logical truths?
No one wishes ill to those who see themselves as 'transgender.' And no one I know is willing to simply roll over and allow our rights and protections to be trampled because someone's feelings might be hurt for not being seen as the sex they are appropriating, the sex they are pretending to be. Biological fact says that no one can change sex -- every cell in the body is sexed! So it is appropriation, it is pretense, at its most basic level. Female spaces belong to females, to women and girls, and to us only. 'Transgender same-sex spaces' is an illogical concept.
Please understand the incredible level of bias in your request! We matter, too. We, women and girls, do not want rights OVER anyone else. But why should others have rights above and beyond our own? Why is claiming 'transgender' a sudden and complete opportunity to trash and transcend the rights of the sex you are not? Also understand that the issue is with M-to-T people, far more than F-to-Ts. Male-bodied people are the boundary violators and appropriators that we are most concerned with. AGP males and sex fetishists number highly in the 'transgender' community, along with boundary-crashers and appropriators. It's not necessary to prove each and every one dangerous to show that the danger exists. Thank you for reading.
I believe that Meta and the Oversight Board made the correct decision in both of these cases. Free debate and speech is not hate speech, publicly disagreeing with someone and their actions is not bullying. The demand to silence people who disagree with your conduct or call it into question (especially when there are safety concerns) is a form of bullying. The complainants who asked Meta to remove content they disagree with classify any speech they do not like as hate speech, that is unreasonable.
In a free and open society individuals should be allowed to debate in the public square. The internet and platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are the public square of the 21st century. We will all encounter ideas that we disagree with, some of which may insult ideas and beliefs we hold dear and sacred, but that does not give us the right to silence others.
Thank You
Since people can change their public gender identities and preferred pronouns at any time and without warning, what would stop people from changing their pronouns, then reporting people for "misgendering" them, solely for the purpose of getting those people in trouble?
Nothing. You know the world is full of unpleasant people who would game the system that way.
You’re looking at an administrative nightmare. Leave it alone. They're just words.
I strongly oppose making misgendering a hate speech because:
We are told that Gender is a feeling and is fluid and can change, sometimeson a daily basis. How are we to know what an individual is feeling at a particular time?
Children are undoubtedly the most vulnerable members of society and are taught at an early age how to keep themselves safe. I believe we are exposing them to great harms when we give them conflicting information about what their eyes and senses are telling them.
Autistic people have enough trouble understanding the cues society gives and, similarly to children, are confused when they're told they are wrong. More than that, I think it would negatively impact on their future confidence when entering the public sphere.
I am fortunate to be self employed so am not forced to speak and behave in a way that conflicts with what I believe to be true and real. If Meta brings in these rules, I will leave the platform.
There is an inherent contradiction in claiming to be open to both sides of an argument while also endorsing (and even enforcing) the language of one side. How can you claim to be a fair and impartial disseminator of information when you put the thumb on the scales in favor of males’ self-identity over the objections of women who say otherwise? Deeming the use of biologically-accurate language as “hate” or “harassment” dilutes the meaning and power of both.
Misgendering may be offensive to some people, but it should still be allowed. Freedom of speech and expression should be protected on Meta.
The Meta Oversight Board has proposed a review of Facebook’s policies on “misgendering” and “hate speech,” and is apparently poised to ban “misgendering” across Meta’s platforms.
Among many other detrimental impacts, a ban such as this would mean SWSA would no longer be able to IDENTIFY and CORRECTLY SEX male athletes in women's sport on this platform.
People should not be required to deny material reality. There are but two sexes and it is not possible to move from one sex to the other. In the United States being free to state such (or to have an opposing view) is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Correctly identifying someone's sex is not "Hate Speech". You cannot force a person to accept that a declaration of the opposite sex makes it so. I have the right to call a man a man.
[We LGB alliance USA attach our statement as a PDF.]