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
We need to be able to clearly address the issues that are raised by trans women's access to women's spaces and programs (and trans men's access to men's spaces and programs). Trans women's use of women's and girls' spaces and programs raises important safety and fairness issues the we should be able to discuss without being branded as bigots or silenced. It is important to protect both trans women and cis women (trans men and cis men) but we need to be able to clearly articulate those issues in order to address them. Sometimes gender is important but sometimes sex is important. I was raped bc I was a girl. I tried identifying as a boy but I continued to be raped bc of my sex. (I would be triggered by trans women in women's facilities. I need to be able to talk about that w.o being called transphobic. Not my fault I have PTSD that was made worse by therapy. Trans women deserve safety but so do I, including avoiding being triggered and reliving my abuse.)
Women are oppressed bc of their sex and bc their bodies are designed to birth babies. Sometimes their gender but always their sex. Men can be a threat to women, even if they have transitioned. We need to be able to talk about this.
Trans ppl deserve safety and respect. We need to discuss their needs too, without lumping them in as women. Trans women (trans men) have distinct needs.
How can we come up with good solutions if we can't discuss the different and sometimes opposing interests of the groups? How can we even get good data if crimes by trans women (men) are lumped in with crimes by women (men)? How can we see how much progress there has been in the wage gap between men and women if now trans women are included in the group of women? Is it real progress or have the same ppl just moved to a different group? Ppl moving from one group to another is not progress in closing the wage gap (bc a lot of it was due to female's reproductive issues and that has not been addressed).
It is not hate speech to correctly name a person's sex. Male and Female cannot he changed. A male can identify however he wants, it will not change his sex. Clothes, cosmetic surgeries, makeup and behavior doesn't define man or woman, but biological sex does.
Furthermore, it is beyond evil and insidious to force women to address males, a member of their oppressor class who have been abusing, dehumanizing and violating women throughout history and even now, as if they are women.
It is pure misogyny for a man to cosplay as a woman, just as much as black face is.
“Misgendering” is not “hate speech,” but treating it as such is compelled speec, encouraging delusional thinking, and giving malicious narcissistic personalities a new means of harassing others off platforms. People cannot be compelled to play along with someone who believes they are the opposite sex and treating it as “harassment” or “bullying” is wrong. A person who needs not “prove anything” likewise can claim any identity they want and change it at any time they want and use this to cause undue anxiety and fear among groups, especially if their identity makes them an influential figure. They can kick out or terminate someone from a platform, giving them a ton of power over a conversation with the help of META — for aggressive, self-absorbed and self-serving personalities, treating “misgendering” as “bullying” or “harassment” is a weapon for them to use against others however they like.
We are not helping a marginalized community by treating “misgendering” as harassment or bullying but enabling the wrong people to do ham to others, There are grown men who “identify” as six-year-old girls like Stefonknee Wolscht and demand to be referred to with she/her pronouns and have access to “same age children.” Men like “Stefonknee” become hostile, enraged and abusive when you do not play along with them. These aren’t the people who should be “defended.”
People who need constant validation for their “identity” will never get enough validation to make them feel however they want to feel and it’s psychologically damaging and confusing to everyone else forced to comply. Empathy is not a one way street and those who have empathy for others would never take being correctly sexed as harassment. It is a disservice to those who want to be referred to by wrong sex pronouns by expecting misgendering to be treated as bullying because there will ALWAYS be people who won’t see you as the sex you want to be and there are certain religions that ever forbid it.
Correctly sexing someone should never have been taken as an offense to begin with and treating it that way has crippled empathy, caused undue harm and anxiety, and given narcissistic personalities a new way to manipulate and harm others. Furthermore, treating misgendering as bullying has made those who are in earnest take something personally when it was never about being mean-spirited or hateful.
Quit enforcing “misgendering” as “harassment” or “bullying.” “Identities” are not immutable characteristics.
I agree that comments should always be respectful and not delberately provocative or insulting. However, recognising reality is neither disrespectful nor insulting. What is both, is forcing people to use terms that they vehemently disagree with! Compelled speech is thought policing! We have a right to refer correctly to a person's sex and not to do so is wrong, untruthful and dangerous.
Free speech is an integral part of the democratic process and you do not have a right to suspend it or punsh people for exercising it.
It should be clear by now that there is a genuine rights conflict between women (defined as a sex class) and the demand of transgender activists that trans women be treated as women on the basis of gender identity. Sports is the obvious case and the one which has probably received the most publicity; sex-based categories are fair as they exclude people with male advantages from the female category. When gender identity is treated as exactly equivalent to sex for purposes of categorisation such as in sport, and particularly when gender identity is recognised on the basis of self-id, the ability to protect a category this way, and thus to ensure fairness and safety, is obliterated. (See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/sms.14715) Lia Thomas may be one of the most egregious examples in the recent past; a mediocre swimmer while competing with males, Thomas became a record-breaking athlete after identifying as a woman, and elite female athletes had to sacrifice podium positions which they deserved, and were accused of bigotry if they protested. This is sexism and patriarchal injustice, however much you dress it up in nominally progressive language. World Aquatics have thankfully seen fit to exclude Williams from competing in the female category.
Williams, and other trans people, are of course victims here as well, in that captured and cowardly athletics organisations (and health, education and various others) have allowed the situation to develop for fear of offending an aggressive minority movement, instead of applying principles of fairness and equality from the outset. A lot of women have become justifiably very angry, a right wing eager to capitalise on anything it can use to attack LGBTQ rights has gotten in on the act, and the result is that abuse is often hurled at individuals rather than campaigns being directed at the government and official bodies who are in fact to blame for this.
That said, the difficulty with treating misgendering as offensive or as hate speech is that it removes women's ability to discuss and confront the issues raised by males self-identifying as women. In this debate it is necessary to be able to refer to people in terms of their sex in order to clarify the numerous issues. Treating women's attempts to do so as 'hate speech', and accusing us of bigotry for declining to be redefined in terms of something as nebulous and intrinsically sexist as 'gender identity', which erases us as a class of people with shared political interests based on our sex, is one of the reasons this has grown into such a toxic debate, and it seems counterproductive to exacerbate this.
I think Meta should avoid policing misgendering and should focus on detecting abuse as opposed to debate. This may require active moderation by humans as opposed to automated natural language processing, but given the relevance of the issue to half the population, the abject failure of supposed progressives to listen to women's concerns, and the opening it's given to right-wing forces, I think suppressing the debate any further over pronoun niceties would be a mistake.
Women’s freedom of speech is threatened when we can not speak the truth about our oppression
The sociopolitical context of this debate is extremely concerning.
Advocates for the gender identity movement have encouraged the view that it is hate speech not to speak and act at all times as though a person’s claimed gender identity was their real sex. Women have been fired from their jobs, threatened with and faced real-world violence, and in Europe even faced legal consequences — all for calling a man a man.
In one of the most egregious examples of women’s free speech being violated, victims of rape have been forced to call their male rapist “she” in court.
How can women truly discuss the impact of male violence and patriarchy on our lives when we are not allowed to name the problem?
The Oversight Board claims to prioritize supporting the freedom of expression of women as a strategic priority. If Meta were to ban stating a person’s sex as “hate speech”, women would no longer be able to meaningfully engage in public discussion about feminism, patriarchy, their rights, or male violence on Meta’s platforms.
In alignment with the Oversight Board’s stated goal of protecting women’s “rights to freedom of expression on social media,” we encourage Meta to adopt a policy explicitly protecting women’s ability to advocate for their rights, including by not limited to:
The right to properly identify the sex of an individual or groups of individuals
The right to advocate for women’s single-sex spaces (including in sports) for the purpose of protecting women’s safety, dignity, and societal advancement
The right to advocate for women’s rights, with recognition that there is a known conflict between laws and policies promoting "gender identity" and women’s rights.
The right to advocate for LGB rights, especially the protection of lesbians, including protection from heterosexual biological males who call themselves lesbians.
Stating someone’s biological sex is not hate speech. No-one should be punished for correctly stating someones correct sex - it is not misgendering but biological and scientific fact.
Stating that a man who may identify as a woman is, in fact, male, is not hate speech. It is a critical safeguarding that women are able to identify who is male - even if they are wearing a dress or say they are women. No male can ever be female.
There are only two (2) sexes. There is so much violence against women by men, and we must always be able to identify men who come into our bathrooms, change rooms, sports, etc. It is not hate speech to say a man is a man.
Please do not expand Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies to include "misgendering" as hate speech. Women must be able to use sex-based language to communicate about our oppression. We must be allowed to participate in public life without being forced to lie about the sex of any person.
I urge Meta to adopt the policies proposed by Women's Liberation Front, in which women have:
1. The right to properly identify the sex of an individual or groups of individuals
2. The right to advocate for women’s single-sex spaces (including in sports) for the purpose of protecting women’s safety, dignity, and societal advancement
3. The right to advocate for women’s rights, with recognition that there is a known conflict between laws and policies promoting "gender identity" and women’s rights.
4. The right to advocate for LGB rights, especially the protection of lesbians, including protection from heterosexual biological males who call themselves lesbians
Correctly identifying a person's biological sex is not hate speech. Protecting women's rights requires recognizing the biological reality of the female sex as opposed to the male sex. Thank you.
Correctly sexing someone is not hate speech. Compelled speech seems hateful! This ideology is being rejected by more and more people who see the dangers to the rights of women and children and the huge safeguarding harms. Humans cannot change sex. Men are not women; women are not men. This is reality, not hatred.
Using correct, sex-based pronouns is not hate speech. To argue otherwise would like arguing that discussing evolution must be constrained because it might be considered “hate speech” by creationists. Enough with the censorship already! Let people express themselves honestly and openly. Stop vilifying science in the name of “kindness” towards those who place “feelings” above science material reality.
Moreover, pretending that men who identify as women are not actually men is hateful and oppressive towards women.
It is inappropriate to enforce gender ideology on the speech of service users. Non-belief in the unscientific claim that sex is not a biological reality is a valid position for anyone to take and it is absurd that any corporation should try to force people into silence of that belief.
Meta must not eliminate its users' ability to describe, using biologically accurate language, the world as each of us sees it. Forcing me to use an individual's preferred pronouns is compelled speech. And calling a person male, when he is indeed male, is not hateful, it's the truth.
Your decision will impact mostly women speaking up in defense of their rights and calling attention to dangerous and/or unfair situations. So I find it especially telling (though unsurprising) that you're approaching this debate from the perspective of how it will affect the TRANS community, not women.
Calling out a man in women's sports is not exclusionary. Men - however they identify - can always compete against other men. Women's sports were created to exclude male advantage and give women a level playing field. So every time a man takes a woman's spot on a team, a WOMAN has been excluded, not a man.
Women have faced oppression since the dawn of time and Meta users, it seems, get to call women whatever they want. You know what we do? We deal with it. Because that's free speech. You cannot give special treatment to one group - if you're going to eliminate bullying and harassment against trans-identifying individuals, then you must find a way to eliminate bullying against EVERYONE. Good luck!
The trans community already has the same rights as everyone else - what they're demanding (and in some cases, have been legally granted) is special privileges, and those privileges are in direct conflict with women's rights. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are opposed to males in women's sports and spaces. So the changes being contemplated by this Oversight Board will only serve to silence people with legitimate concerns, stifle public debate, and further add to the gaslighting that each of us is forced to deal with every day.
I am a college-educated mother of two young daughters, who over the past several years has witnessed the rapid decline of women’s freedoms in the U.S. Men -- males -- will never have to confront the loss of safety, dignity and opportunity that women currently face. This is not a red or blue issue - it's basic common sense and fairness going out the window. We must be able to openly discuss the issue using language that reflects reality.
In alignment with the Oversight Board’s stated goal of protecting women’s “rights to freedom of expression on social media,” I encourage Meta to adopt a policy explicitly protecting women’s ability to advocate for their rights, including by not limited to:
1. The right to properly identify the sex of an individual or groups of individuals
2. The right to advocate for women’s single-sex spaces (including in sports) for the purpose of protecting women’s safety, dignity, and societal advancement
3. The right to advocate for women’s rights, with recognition that there is a known conflict between laws and policies promoting "gender identity" and women’s rights.
4. The right to advocate for LGB rights, especially the protection of lesbians, including protection from heterosexual biological males who call themselves lesbians.
By labeling the use of sex-based pronouns as hate speech, you are favoring one set of beliefs over another. You are literally forcing your belief in gender ideology onto others.
Not everyone believes in gender as it’s known today. Many of us only recognize sex and do not want to be confined and constricted by gender roles and stereotypes. I see myself as a woman; an adult human female. That’s it. This does not affect what I wear, how I speak, my interests, etc. Because I do not participate in gender ideology. I believe others should have the right to participate in gender if they so choose, but I should not be forced to if I don’t want to. And because I don’t believe in gender ideology, I only use sex-based pronouns for others. Coercing me to do anything different by threatening to ban me is similar to forcing someone to recite a prayer from a religion they are not a part of. It is not hate speech to only acknowledge sex and not gender. In fact, I would say it’s pretty progressive. But those are my beliefs. And they should be respected.
Gender identity belief is just that - a belief. Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not hateful; it is an incontrovertible truth. Humans are one of two sexes only, as decided at conception.
Misgendering simply does not happen. Gender is nothing but the phenotypic expression of sex chromosomes. Denying that award was to an observer is gaslighting.
We need to be able to name reality.
Sex is real.
Forbidding telling the truth is anti-democratic, anti-social, and extremely dangerous.
Dear Meta,
I am a biologist. My undergraduate thesis was the consequences of over-training and calorie restriction on minor female gymnasts. My graduate thesis was sex change in salamanders, a common thing in animals which do not gestate live young.
There are only two sexes, biologically, this is the only truth. ALL the field of biology's research is based on male/female sex. The field of medicine and the Medical Industrial Complex rely on the differences between male and female biology to make medical policies.
"gender" a social construct and should not be allowed to replace sex in any legal texts or government documents. People's "gender identity" should have no more status in society than someone's religion. "gender" is a thought process, not a scientific fact.
Replacing sex with "gender" policies is sexist, misogynistic, but mostly, anti-scientific, and akin to Lysenkoism in the modern day.
Meta should get out of the business of speech policing. Sex is a fact of life.
Woman = adult human female
Men can never become women.
Men's bodies don't have feminine souls trapped inside them.
Thank you