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
As a woman in the world, I find it shocking and terrifying that one of the largest and most powerful social media networks, which we all use to connect with all of our essential communities, has a plan to excommunicate women that are unwilling to 1) say that men who are identifying as "trans women" are actual women, 2) accept that our private and protected sex-based spaces are intruded upon by men who identify as "trans women", and 3) accept a gag order, silencing and violation of our right to free expression on the subject of gender identity. It is horrifying to be subjected to an order that we must obey or else, a decree that says we must agree to identify (with our own human senses which has evolved a fine-tuned ability to identify the sex of anyone, a biological instinct we developed to keep us safe) a MAN as a WOMAN, when we know beyond a shadow of a doubt we are looking at a man. All women and girls depend for our lives on our ability to identify men correctly, and now we are being told by Meta (!!!) a commercial company, that we must pretend like we have no idea what a man is. This plan is so shameful, so anti-woman, so deeply misogynistic its hard to know where to begin.
It is not hate speech to define a male by his sex. This is nonsense and most people are very well aware of it. Most people recognize gender as a man made concept. It has absolutely nothing to do with a persons sex. If someone who is male wants to look and act like what they think a woman is, the rest of us choose reality. They can pretend away, but those of us who understand what DNA and gametes are will never go along with this falsity.
In order to discuss the conflicts between gender identity and women's rights, it's important to recognize that we have two fundamentally opposed views: one that preserves the historical understanding that being a man or woman is determined by biological sex and one that embraces the modern notion that these are determined by subjective feelings. For meaningful discussion to occur, women need to be able to clearly articulate their point of view, which means referring to individuals as their sex. When language is controlled and limited because certain words are now considered hate speech, women's ability to argue their case is crippled. For example, when a female athlete uses the word "man" to describe a competitor, she focuses the attention on the physiological differences between them, and implicitly reminds listeners of why we have separate categories to begin with. This is the foundation of her objection. Altering the language to say "transgender woman" obscures the physical differences that form the basis of the objection. Now the argument appears to be against including a different kind of woman in competition. This is not how women see the situation, and they have a right to say so.
On the subject of misgendering, we again are faced with differing worldviews. Declaring that misgendering someone is disrespectful and should be punished effectively means that people will be forced to say things they don't actually believe. Such control over how others describe you, using only the words you sanction, or else, is itself profoundly disrespectful. More than that, it's tyrannical and denies other people their rights to freedom of speech.
Disagreement is not hatred. People have a right to express their opinions, even if others find those views objectionable. People have a right to choose the words that best articulate their position, even if others dislike those terms. We need to reserve the term 'hate speech' for language that truly encourages hatred toward others, not use the label as a tool to censor views some people don't like.
I am a detransitioned woman. Calling “misgendering” (correctly sexing) HATE SPEECH degrades the actual hate speech that happens. While I do not think trans-identified people deserve hatred, I do not think anyone else should be compelled to affirm anyone else’s spiritual belief about his or herself. Insisting that it is hate speech to refer to all males with male pronouns regardless of their internal feelings is in line with insisting it would be hate speech to refer to Jesus with lowercase “he” instead of the Christian “He.”
Sex is immutable; that is a biological scientific fact, not an opinion. Freedom of speech allows people to express opinions as well as facts.If I say a biological male, XY genotype, is male, that is simply fact and if I have meaningful freedom of speech, I will be free of any sanction for that utterance.To sanction me in any way for speaking scientific truth is oppression. It is a mind fuck to forbid people from speaking truth. It makes the world a terrible, frightening, unlivable place. To do such a thing makes you a tyrant.
In my 73 years as a woman, I have learned that I cannot reliably tell which biological men are likely to harm me. But I know some can and might and have. To keep myself safe from harm by men, I must be able to identify them accurately and I must have some safe spaces from which all men are excluded. How can I keep myself safe if I cannot freely identify men and speak about them accurately according to my own experiences? Whatever opinions I have formed in this regard are also aspects of my right to speak freely my own truths. If men who seek to impersonate women do not like this, how does that limit my own right to speak freely the truth as I see it? My integrity as a free human being is violated if my speech is constrained by the preferences of others.
Sex is real; gender is a socially constructed lie. No one is born with gender because gender is a product of human consciousness and history, different at different times and in different places.The ideologies supporting transgenderism are incoherent but because free discussion of them is forbidden they continue to thrive in a context defined by fear and the silencing of free speech. Don’t allow this travesty to continue, Meta. People aren’t transphobic because we refuse to bow down to utter nonsense and clear misogyny.
Correctly stating a person's sex--the material reality that an individual is male or female as determined by gene complement and one's normative sexual development that is driven by those genes into becoming one of the two sexes--is not "hate speech" and Meta correctly held so in this instance. American law has never coerced one free citizen to affirm the subjective beliefs of another, however ardently held those beliefs may be. Perhaps the closest parallel in that respect to gender identity is religious belief. While the right to have such beliefs is strongly protected, the First Amendment stops the government from forcing one person's beliefs on others. Meta is not the government, but its far-reaching, global community standards verge on the force of law, and it should not use its profound power to coerce others to affirm individual, subjective beliefs about gender.
This is particularly true where gender theory is concerned: it is wholly a system of subjective beliefs that cannot be objectively proven. Its leading proponents tell us that “Gender identity can be conceptualized as a continuum ... a Mobius ..., or patchwork" (Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery, 2d ed. 2014 43 (Randi Ettner, Stan Monstrey, Eli Coleman, eds.)). Yet those proponents never explain how one might pick a point within a continuum, Mobius, or patchwork of genders that are disconnected from biological reality but which, they insist, somehow define whether one is a man or a woman (or something of both, neither, or something else entirely).
Meta is right to raise this question, as it reveals the coercive nature of gender theory. Pronouns are said to be "preferred," yet what "preferred" means here is "mandatory." And it compels me--a member of the male sex--to proclaim that I am not male as an accident of birth and as a matter of objective reality, but rather that I sincerely feel like I am male and am thus a cisgender man.
It is a mistake to think that gender is some gloss on sex; instead, it wholly supplants sex as a coherent category in logic and law. Catering to its demands of enforcing "preferences" and deeming the failure to conform as "hate speech" leaves one where Mr. Smith was with Mr. O'Brien at the end of George Orwell's book, 1984. Meta should not join Mr. O'Brien in telling us how many fingers we see when we can report on material reality by seeing and counting.
I am an American citizen. Freedom of expression has never been more critical in this country & in the west than it is today. True freedom of speech necessitates that NOTHING is off the table, & therefore nothing can realistically be labeled as “Hate” speech.
Words can sting, make us angry or hurt our sense of dignity, yes. But when we start trying to police the words of others, there can seemingly be no end in sight because someone, somewhere can potentially take offense to anything. You & I MUST defend the rights of others to say things that we find offensive, disgusting, & hateful because at some point any one of us may express an opinion that triggers a negative reaction from others.
As an American, I believe freedom of speech is the linchpin of all our other constitutional freedoms. Without it, the rest of those freedoms become tenuous. Although it now serves a global audience, Meta’s origins are American, so one would naturally assume that the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. constitution carry weight with your staff as well.
There is plenty of disagreement surrounding pronoun use & “misgendering”. White supremacists believe in Anglo-Saxon superiority over other races. Atheists and believers have debated for a couple thousand years on the existence of God. You can still find a few folks who cling to the idea that the earth is flat!
Who gets to be the arbiter of what is true and right, and what is “harmful”?
And what are the consequential harms of chipping away at what we can and cannot say?
And ultimately, we’re talking about social media here. If you don’t like someone’s expressed views, don’t you have the option to simply block, mute or scroll by?
Humans, like all mammals, are sexually dimorphic. Sex is binary. Sex is immutable. To try to pretend otherwise and confuse sex with "gender" or "gender identity" is ignoring science.
There are separate categories for women's sports because of the biological differences between men and women.
Women are discriminated against because of their sex.
What even is "misgendering"? Human sex cannot be changed no matter the hormonal or surgical treatment.
Keep in mind when reading this that I myself identified as transgender for a total of 3 years, desisting just 4 years ago. Now, I believe that transgender people are valid in their own right, in the sense that it is okay for someone who is biologically male to prefer to present traditionally femininely to the point of using a traditionally female name and female pronouns among others who are comfortable using them (I further believe it's okay for someone to not want to use another person's "preferred pronouns" for a plethora of reasons and it's not a hate crime.) But, it would never be okay for this person to force themselves into female spaces, and similarly, it is never okay for a person who is biologically female to force themselves into male spaces. Neither person should ever deceive others into thinking they're biologically another sex than they are (whether it's during something as intimate as sexual encounter or simply seeking friendship with another man or woman.) By definition, a biological male can never understand "the female experience", and vice versa. From the determination of one's sex in utero are male babies and female babies treated differently, from birth are they socialized differently. Women in particular are so deeply conditioned to act differently, to behave more performatively, and to "protect" herself when there is a biological male present, whether that person identifies as a woman or a man is irrelevant. Women simply need spaces without males present. So, correctly identifying another person's biological sex and acting accordingly is not a hate crime.
If moderation policies are to be fair and effective, they must first recognise reality. The reality is that it is not possible for humans to change sex: trans women are male, trans girls are male. Anyone should be free to express their gender identity, but gender does not determine sex.
There are some contexts where sex matters, like sports (for fairness), and changing rooms, toilet facilities or anywhere anyone is getting undressed (for privacy). These spaces and events are organised around sex (male or female as an immutable physical characteristic) and should include everyone on the basis of their sex, without discriminating by gender identity.
It is not possible to support inclusion or fairness for anyone, in any context including online moderation policies, without first recognising these realities.
Sex cannot be changed. It's in every cell of our body. People can assume the everyday mannerisms and dress of those of the opposite sex, but it is merely acting. There is no magic that can create sex change in humans (or any mammals). Gender is another word for sex. It is equally immutable.
Freedom of speech must include saying what we see and saying what we know to be right.
It is not offensive to speak the truth.
Women are oppressed by gender ideology which seeks to colonise women's lives. This colonisation puts fairness and safety for women and girls in jeopardy. Women are entitled to document and fight this colonisation.
Correctly sexing people is part of the entitlement to truth rather than participating in a lie. It is not offensive to call men 'he' if they are in a single sex space reserved for females. It is not offensive to correctly say that men colonising women's sport is unfair and dangerous to females and takes away their opportunity to participate and win.
Females deserve speech that is exclusive to them.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is NOT hate speech.
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, not gender identity, and it is not the same thing to be entitled to be treated as the opposite sex.
Women fought for sex based rights and to have Meta trying to overturn that on a social media site is nothing short of misogyny and an attack on free speech.
Women do not have a safe space even on lesbian dating sites where men who have not even had gender reassignment are showing up saying they are “lesbians”. Men who have been arrested for sexual assault crimes are all of a sudden identifying as female because they think they can get a more lenient sentence. They then go and sexually assault the women in the women’s prison they have been sent to.
Misgendering is not a crime, only to the men who say so.
I support unrestricted, free speech on social media platforms.
Social Media, especially YouTube and Facebook, have a long one-sided history of silencing viewpoints they don't agree with. Free Speech allows us to challenge ideas we don't agree with. We have seen your commitment to silencing people like Riley Gaines for being outspoken against men competing in women sports. You all have to push the vile rhetoric that she is dangerous, transphobic, misogynistic, etc. Why can't she be allowed to express her opinion about that subject and others? These cases are no different. They don't fit your narrative, so they must be banned from speaking. You sure didn't seem to care in the old days when you allowed Daniel Pearl's head being cut off by Al Queda to be posted on your page. I think that would fit all the terms for hate speech, violence, etc. You allowed postings and videos depicting cops being murdered. That is ok, that is a leftist favored thought.
You have allowed the government and its agencies to spread dangerous misinformation and lies with the Covid crap Dr. Death was pushing (you all know it has been determined much that was pushed out by your platform has been debunked) Americans to do and not do. Where is the balance? As long as you are Antifa, BLM, Democrat, Satanist, Terrorist, etc., you have a voice. Anything else is misinformation or needs to be censored. I would love to see you all broken up and no longer the mega-corporations you are. You know the right thing to do is to keep the videos up and show that you are trying to be balanced.
I disagree with the proposed policy of declaring "misgendering" to any post on Facebook. How is one to always know the presumed sex/gender of a person? It's not always obvious. But sometimes it is. If you were born a man, you will stay male for the rest of your life, no matter what alterations are done to the body. The same goes for women born female. Altering one's body does not alter one's birth sex. Trans individuals must learn to tolerate others' mistakes in "misgendering" as the rest of us are asked to tolerate trans individuals.
Free speech is a right, and adherence to science and biological facts is the only way to stay rooted in reality. Gender ideology is an ideology, just like any other religion, and all the demands that it is requiring, down to denying biological reality is a slippery slope, moving away from truth, not towards it. We live in a country that is supposed to separate church and state. This is a clear example of one bleeding into the other. If a man "feels" like a woman, and wants to call himself a woman, that's his right. It is not his right to compel me to go along with that. Regardless of how you identify, you have not actually changed sex, and the quicker we explain that to people, the happier and safer they will be. Accepting your biology is healthy. It is not hateful to stay rooted in science, and there needs to be space to be honest. Please do not promote this denial of reality. Please push back on the corporations that are trying to have you censor free speech. You have already admitted that you caved to pressures that were inappropriate in the past. This is clearly more of the same tactic that has tragic consequences for the human race.
Reality is not hate speech.
It's nobody's business if someone wants to present themselves as the opposite sex or as neither. 90 percent of the time, a person's sex doesn't matter anyway. The other ten percent, however, is frequently a matter of life or death. To women.
Calling it "hate speech" to acknowledge the reality of material sex robs female people of the right to set boundaries and say no. It gives cover to men who are already claiming "trans" as cover for abuse. You dismiss women to the back of the bus and tell them, "Shut up and sit down. You don't matter. No one cares."
Women have enough trouble with the right trying to strip away their bodily integrity and freedom. Now the left is trying to do the same.
At least leave women the right to talk about their experience and how they are affected. If you listened, you might see how we could accommodate both the inclusion needs of trans people and the sex-based needs of women.
Extreme transgender ideology, e.g., the believe that men and women can literally change sexes is unscientific, oppressive to biological women, and beneficial only to a small subset of male to female trans people. Without discussion or votes or any democratic participation on our part, women have been subjected to the machinations of powerful monied lobbies to. Meta should not force the belief of a gender identity on others any more than it would force any other unscientific religious belief. To force individuals to call a man “she,” especially in the context of a debate on women’s rights, is forcing women to claim adherence to this false belief system in order to participate in public life on Meta. This false belief system is similar to the unscientific belief of Creationism and should not be supported by logical fair persons.
The truth should never be categorised as hate speech. Media platforms like Meta cannot allow lies to masquerade as the truth. We are living in a world where parents are being censored for correctly sexing their own children. This cannot be right, and it cannot be encouraged. The dangers of attempts to change or dilute the meaning of commonly-understood words like 'mother' and 'woman', as warned of Orwell and many other writers, seem so obvious as to hardly require repeating. Referring to a transwoman as 'he' may be a little unkind, but it should never be illegal or subject to censure. Especially as, in any case, the whole schtick of the trans advocates movement is to insist that not only should they regard themselves as having changed sex, but that everyone else should be coerced to go along with this. Oh, and one further thing: if media platforms could always use the word 'sex' when they mean sex, and not attempt to replace it with 'gender', that' d be great. Thanks for listening!