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
Hate Speech, Bullying and Harassment policies necessarily impinge on freedom of speech and must be applied with great care. These policies are needed to protect vulnerable individuals from unreasonable attacks - ie: bullying and harassment. To assess this, it is essential to consider who is truly the vulnerable or weaker individual in any scenario. The physical differences between men and women continue to be real and substantial, rendering women vulnerable to male violence (including sexual attack) and systemic disadvantage in activities where physical strength, stamina or physique is relevant. Given this context, the content in question documents women acting in reasonable defence of their own and other women's rights in circumstances where their safe spaces and opportunities are under premeditated attack by males fraudulently claiming to have changed sex. Although it is true that in many jurisdictions these actions have been condoned by the authorities and legislation, social media is an important instrument enabling women to mount a protest against unjust laws and infringement of their sex-based human rights. Meta, alongside other social media and mainstream media outlets, plays an essential role in the operation of democracy and it is essential that content such as this is not removed. Those who identify as trans have made a choice to challenge women's sex-based rights. However, women and girls have been given no choice in the matter and must be able to protest these unwelcome incursions.
It's 2024. Assault survivors (especially inmates, a disproportionate number of whom are minorities) are forced to call their male rapists "She". People and corporations like Meta, are calling it hate speech if others do not comply in using language they disagree with. "Right speech" is a term being used... Sound familiar? Maybe like a dystopian sci-fi novel?
Gender and sex are NOT the same thing. Science matters. Sex matters.
To allow such blatant brainwashing and language policing means you are one step closer to erasing the shared realities and struggles of women everywhere. And the sex based struggles and realities of women everywhere.
Science and sex are not things that can be changed. If a man wears a dress that doesn’t make him a woman. He is still biologically male. There is a reason men and women have separate sports leagues. Men have biological advantages over women and it is not hate or harassment to point that out in a civil manner.
There is so much hatred and actual hate speech in the world that it's dangerous to trivialize it. To claim "misgendering" is hate speech is an example of this dangerous trivialization. Not only that, freedom of speech must be protected. Classifying "misgendering" as hate speech is authoritarian and infringes on the free speech rights of women, religious groups, and anyone else who values a reality-based approach to life. Calling for violence upon those who do not conform to gender stereotypes is hate speech. Calling a man a man and a woman a woman is not hate speech. I urge you not to ban reality-based language and reject the idea of "misgendering" as hate speech.
Women’s rights are being eroded. We need to be able to speak without fear about our own experiences without fear.
We have the right to acknowledge the reality of biological.
Men are destroying women’s sports.
Children are being indoctrinated into thinking that they have been born into the wrong body when this is an impossibility. They are having their bodies mutilated to attempt to change sex. Their lives are being destroyed.
Women and girls are in danger from predatory men in spaces that should not allow access to them.
Parents can no longer insist that a female carer do personal care for their profoundly disabled daughter. This is dangerously.
We need to talk about these things. How can we protect our girls otherwise.
Sex is an inherent characteristic that cannot be changed. Most languages (including English) use different pronouns for males and females. In recent times some people have decided that individuals have the right to dictate that others must use non-sex-aligned pronouns when referring to them. These people have no right to redefine the rules of languages that have evolved over many generations and are used by many (since infancy, in the case of a mother tongue).
Our sex dictates many things about us that we cannot change, both in terms of our biology, and in medical matters, and also in how we are treated by the rest of society. Women and girls suffer high rates of violence at the hands (and other body parts) of men, who form at approximately 99% of sexual offenders across the world. (Females make up at around 89-99% of victims.) Women are generally paid less and own only about 1% of the world's resources.
Women's bodies can do and experience things that men's bodies cannot. We bear the bulk of the reproductive burden for our species: pregnancy, the menstrual cycle, menopause, breast feeding/nursing. We are also significantly less strong than men. One consequence of this is that we are unable to compete meaningfully and safely with men in most sports. Women have had to battle to have their own sports categories. Now, having established sporting competitions for themselves, sportswoman face a new threat. Males who want to be seen as female (many of whom are autogynaphiles - defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which categorises psychiatric conditions) are now entering women's sports, to the detriment of girls and women, for whom the competitions were created.
In short, forcing "preferred pronouns" on other users would amount to forced speech and therefore be a violation of freedom of speech. Furthermore, it would amount to the oppression of women as it would prevent us from talking frankly about our rights (particularly where males accused of, or convicted of, violence against women or children are concerned).
I find it outrageous that this would be considered “hate speech” when people are just speaking the truth. Has our culture really come to this when we cannot confront a lie? Are we really supposed to bury our heads in the sand and let this insanity continue? It is time that people speak up for what is true and right. Men pretending to be women do not belong in women’s restrooms. Any speech addressing this should not be considered “hate speech”.
Sex Matters is a human rights charity based in the UK (charity number is 1207701). Sex Matters’ objects, which have been recognised by the Charity Commission of England and Wales as being in the public interest, are to:
a) promote human rights where they relate to biological sex
b) advance education about sex and the law
c) promote the sound administration of the law in relation to sex and equality in the law.
Our approach is rooted in recognition of human rights and in biological reality. We recognise that people are born male or female, that they cannot change sex, and that sex is often important. This viewpoint is sometimes termed “gender critical”, and has been found to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (not in conflict with the fundamental human rights of others) and covered by human rights protections concerning freedom of belief and freedom of speech by courts in the UK.
We agree with Meta’s decision to keep these posts up.
Referring to someone who is male as male, or as a man (or vice versa; referring to someone female as a woman) is not hate speech. These are simply the words used to describe people accurately in relation to their sex.
It is critical for freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and for protection against sex discrimination that people are able to speak clearly about the two sexes; both as categories and relation to individuals.
Reasons to want to use clear language include in political and current affairs debates, in relation to services and sports provided for one sex or the other, and familial (such as in relation to a son or daughter, husband, father etc…) or in dating.
While we agree that Meta made the right decision, we are concerned that the use of “sex”, “gender” and “gender identity” without distinction in Meta’s policies means the company’s complaints system is vulnerable to be sparked by complaints against those using clear sex-based language, such as those advocating for female-only facilities and sports.
In recent years people who express the gender critical view have been smeared as “transphobic” and have faced bullying and harassment at work, vexatious reports to the police, smearing as “hate groups”, and organised campaigns to have them removed from social media.
The Meta rules leave enough ambiguity to make individuals and organisations that use clear sex-based language vulnerable to vexatious complaints or automated banning. This is something Sex Matters has experienced (temporary bans and bans that have been lifted after appeal) as have several other accounts that do not support gender ideology and which refer to sex accurately.
*What is Sex?*
The ordinary meaning of sex relates to biology and sexual reproduction. Male refers to individuals, or body parts, that have followed the developmental pathway that supports the production of sperm. Female refers to individuals, or body parts, that have followed the developmental pathway that supports the production of eggs. Man and boy relate to male individuals, and woman and girl to female individuals. Sex is determined at conception and observed at birth (and often before). For humans, as for all mammals, it is impossible to change sex.
The term “gender” is often used as a synonym for sex (particularly in American English). It is also used for the linguistic classes of masculine, feminine nouns and pronouns. In recent years it has become used to mean “gender identity” a subjective feeling that someone is male or female or both or neither, or something else.
While most people around the world, in laws and throughout history have used the words male/female man/woman (and equivalents in other languages) for their natural meanings, other people wish to use them to relate to gender identity.
‘Gender ideology’ refers to the belief system that views gender identity as more important than, and replacing sex.
Sex, gender and hate speech on Facebook and Instagram.
Meta does not outlaw “misgendering” (referring to someone by their sex when they would prefer to be referred to by their declared gender identity). However it confuses the two concepts in ways that create vulnerability.
For example Facebook does not have a field for users to record their sex (male/female), but does allow individuals to record their “gender identity” which can be male, female, non-binary or other (with a free text box). Therefore any rules and polices that ought to, or might be assumed to relate to sex (such as allowing single-sex groups) will instead be applied to the concept of gender identity.
Many adherents to gender ideology view any mention of a person's sex if they have adopted an alternative gender identity as an attack, dehumanizing etc… whereas for people who don't share their belief in gender ideology it is simply a statement about a salient fact.
Meta states Tier 1 banned statements include “Statements denying existence of protected characteristics.
This might interpreted to includes simple statements of disbelief in gender identity such that “trans women are men”. People who hold so called “gender critical” beliefs are frequently accused of “denying the existence” of transgender people. In fact what they are saying is they do not believe in gender identity . This is not denying the existence of people who do (in the same way an atheist does not believe in god, but is not denying the existence of religious people).
Tier 3 include “Content targeting a person or group of people on the basis of their protected characteristic(s) with…segregation in the form of calls for action, statements of intent, aspirational or conditional statements, or statements advocating or supporting segregation” and “Exclusion in the form of calls for action, statements of intent, aspirational or conditional statements, or statements advocating or supporting, including social exclusion, which means things such as denying access to spaces (physical and online) and social services, except for gender-based exclusion in health and positive support groups.”
The provision for “gender-based exclusion in health and positive support groups” may mean “gender” as a synonym for sex. This would reflect the need for services to meet different health needs of women and men and the need for positive support groups (such as rape crisis counselling, menopause support, or separate sex drug rehabilitation) and associations.
However as Facebook does not have a category for sex: but only for gender (identity) the fact that “sex-based exclusions” are not specifically mentioned could lead to the interpretation that statements such as “trans women are men and should not be housed in women’s prisons” or “Lia Thomas is a man and should not compete in women’s swimming” are illegitimate exclusion and therefore hate speech.
The question of whether individuals who are male but who identify as women should or should not be excluded from provisions for women is a live political discussion in many countries (not only in the US).
Sex based policies and exclusion are recognised as lawful in the UK. Clarifying the law further has been the topic of Parliamentary debate. In order to talk about excluding all males from facilities for females it is necessary to be clear that “trans women” (both categorically and individually) are male.
*Human rights*
The Meta oversight board asks for comments on “The impacts of Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies …the rights of transgender people, including minors). However it should consider the impacts on the human rights of everyone.
Protection against sex discrimination is critical to human rights. Ensuring that women have equal rights and are able to exercise them does not mean ignoring the fact that male bodies and female bodies are different, or that women and men have different life experiences and vulnerabilities and can have different needs. In particular 98% of sexual crimes are undertaken by men with the predominant victims being women and children. Being able to speak about men and women is a matter of freedom of expression. Separate-sex facilities are often necessary for privacy, dignity and safety, separate-sex sports for safety and fairness. Separate sex associations are matters of freedom of association. Not allowing separate provisions for women and men in these situations would in practice result in exclusion or restriction for women from public life.
A series of employment tribunal cases in the UK have established that gender critical beliefs are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. This means that those who hold and express these beliefs are protected against discrimination based on belief by the Equality Act. (following Forstater v CG D [2021]/ Given the prejudice against people with gender critical beliefs demonstrated by the employers in these tribunals, and coordinated efforts to have them cancelled from public life we argue they should be considered a vulnerable group.
Professor Kathleen Stock, Professor of Philosophy at Sussex University gave helpful evidence on this in the case of Harry Miller v Humberside Police & others which concerned a man who was visited by the police after complaints about his tweets. (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf )
Professor Stock writes: “In my work, among other things I argue that there’s nothing wrong, either theoretically, linguistically, empirically, or politically, with the once-familiar idea that a woman is, definitionally, an adult human female. I also argue that the subjective notion of ‘gender identity’ is ill-conceived intrinsically, and a fortiori as a potential object of law or policy. In light of these and other views, I am intellectually ‘gender-critical’; that is, critical of the influential societal role of sex-based stereotypes, generally, including the role of stereotypes in informing the dogmatic and, in my view, false assertion that – quite literally – ‘trans women are women’. I am clear throughout my work that trans people are deserving of all human rights and dignity.”
In her evidence Professor Stock describes the ‘hostile climate’ facing gender-critical academics working in UK universities. She says that any research which threatens to produce conclusions or outcomes that influential trans-advocacy organisations would judge to be politically inexpedient, faces significant obstacles. These, broadly, are impediments to the generation of research and to its publication. She also explains how gender critical academics face constant student protests which hinder their work. She says: “As also indicative, since I began writing and speaking on gender-critical matters: the Sussex University Student Union Executive has put out a statement about me on their website, accusing me of ‘transphobia’ and ‘hatred’; I’ve had my office door defaced twice with stickers saying that ‘TERFS’ are ‘not welcome here’ …” ‘TERF’ is an acronym for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’. It is used to describe feminists who express ideas that others consider transphobic, such as the claim that trans women are not women, opposition to transgender rights and exclusion of trans women from women's spaces and organisations. It can be a pejorative term.
She describes a dogmatic belief, widespread amongst academics in Gender Studies.and feminist philosophy that trans women are literally women, that trans men are literally men, and that any dissent on this point must automatically be transphobic …”
The court also heard evidence from Jodie Ginsberg, the then CEO of Index on Censorship. Index on Censorship is a non-profit organisation that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. It publishes work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. She focuses on Twitter which at the time was banning people for “misgendering” and said that this was “stifling legitimate debate on this topic by its terms of service which apparently treat gender critical comment as hate speech”.
The judge observed that “some involved in the debate are readily willing to label those with different viewpoints as ‘transphobic’ or as displaying ‘hatred’ when they are not. It is clear that there are those on one side of the debate who simply will not tolerate different views, even when they are expressed by legitimate scholars whose views are not grounded in hatred, bigotry, prejudice or hostility, but are based on legitimately different value judgments, reasoning and analysis, and form part of mainstream academic research.”
The recent Cass Review on treatment of gender questioning children (commissioned by NHS England) also underlined the need to consider evidence for treatments. This requires clear language and categories.
*Advocates demanding a clamp down on gender critical speech*
GLAAD has published a celebrity letter and a report “Unsafe: Meta Fails to Moderate Extreme Anti-trans Hate Across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads” which both call on GLAAD to ban “ targeted misgendering, deadnaming”. This means referring to people by their actual sex or their previous name. It says
“The company should adopt a comprehensive policy that prohibits targeted deadnaming on Instagram, explain in detail how this policy is enforced, and should not require self-reporting (the company should also update its targeted misgendering policy to not require self-reporting, and to protect public figures). The company should also disclose that it employs various processes and technologies — including human and automated content moderation — to detect content and behaviors violating these policies.
Meta should not follow this recommendation. Instead it should
- Allow people to register their sex with a clear category
- Make clear that sex -based exclusion in health and positive support groups is legitimate.
- Resist banning “misgendering”
*Concern about the framing by the Meta Oversight board*
The meta oversight board describes these two cases a relating to a “transgender woman” and a “transgender girl”. Someone who does not subscribe to gender identity might refer to these two people as a trans-identifying man and a trans-identifying boy. It would then be obvious why it is argued that they should not be entering female-only spaces or sports.
The oversight board ask about “the rights of transgender people, especially for access to single-sex spaces and participation in sporting events”. This question about rights needs to be specified more clearly. A man who identifies as a woman or non-binary has every right to participate in sports with other men. The question is whether someone who is male has a right to use female-only facilities or sports. We are concerned about the framing by Meta’s Oversight board which excludes this.
It is also concerning that Meta’s strategic priority on “gender” states:
Women, non-binary and trans people are among those who experience obstacles to exercising their rights to freedom of expression on social media. We are exploring the obstacles faced by women and LGBTQIA+ people, including gender-based violence and harassment, and the effects of gender-based distinctions in content policy."
This framing does not recognise that women are discriminated against because of their sex. They may have different interests to trans-identifying males. The portmanteau term “LGBTQIA+” further conflates women with gay men and with cross-dressing men. Many lesbians and gay men object to being subsumed under this umbrella, when there can be conflicts of interest between different groups.
Women, the XX kind, speaking the truth about their biology, their bodies and the process the go through from birth to adulthood is not hate speech. Women, the XX kind, should be able to speak freely about the fact that they are losing their rights, safety and protections, that men have now gained access to their sports teams, academic accolades, prison systems, rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, these things are not hate speech. Women and men standing against doctors & pharmaceutical companies who wish to harm their children by putting them on wrong sex hormones and amputating perfectly healthy parts of their bodies is not hate speech, it is mothers and fathers protecting their children. FB and IG will harm women and girls further by shutting down access to FREE SPEECH and the right to defend themselves on the two most popular and available social media platforms.
Save title 9, save women’s sports, support women only spaces, save women’s right to be heard. Saying that humans can’t change their sex is not hate speech, it’s the truth. Thank you for not silencing women.
Oversight Board
September 12, 2024
Re: Gender Identity Debate Video Cases
Introduction
AIDS United’s mission is to end the HIV epidemic in the United States. We seek to fulfill our mission through strategic grantmaking, capacity building and technical assistance, and policy and advocacy. We have seen firsthand how the intersectionality of social injustice, discrimination, and health disparity impacts people living with HIV, and AIDS United believes that alleviating this struggle is a pivotal step toward our national well-being.
This submission responds to Meta’s Oversight Board’s request for public comment on cases pertaining to gender identity. 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 Oversight Board has requested public comment that addresses 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; and 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.
Recommendations
As an organization that has operated in the space of LGBTQ+ rights since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, we understand the impact of stigma and discrimination, and the criticality of external arbiters who protect public spaces for the people who rely on them. Meta has not met this need, nor has it reached an appropriate balance between protecting users’ right to exist with the rights of those who often hide behind our beloved value of free speech to spread vitriol and fear.
Meta’s failure to protect LGBTQ+ users from online abuse has had negative consequences on the quality of life and well-being for HIV and LGBTQ+ communities. The company’s unwillingness to adequately remedy the online abuse will continue to perpetuate violence and harm to LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV, as well as contribute to negative health outcomes for the communities that we serve and the broader community. Meta, as a company, can do much more to protect users from online harm and create a safer online environment for the communities that are already vulnerable to discrimination and abuse.
Research has consistently shown that transgender individuals face significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts compared to the general population. According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 40% of transgender respondents reported having attempted suicide in their lifetime—a rate nearly nine times higher than that of the general U.S. population. For transgender individuals living with HIV, the intersection of stigma related to both their gender identity and HIV status further worsens these risks. Allowing content that misgenders or harasses transgender people to remain on Meta’s platforms not only sends a message that their identities are not respected but also reinforces the harmful narratives that contribute to mental health crises.
This is particularly dangerous for young transgender people, who are especially vulnerable to the negative impacts of online harassment and bullying. The case involving a trans minor, targeted by a post from Libs of TikTok, is a stark reminder of the life-threatening risks that such content poses. Additionally, transgender people, particularly trans women of color, also experience disproportionately high rates of violence. The Human Rights Campaign reported that at least 44 transgender or gender non-conforming people were killed in the U.S. in 2020, making it the deadliest year on record for transgender individuals. Many of these violent acts are fueled by the same transphobia and hatred that online harassment provides space to. Exposure to hate speech, for transgender individuals, and the increase of harmful content on platforms like Meta’s not only contributes to a hostile online environment but also increases their risk of being targeted in real life.
Both HIV stigma and discrimination continue to be among the many challenges that people with HIV face, leading to negative impacts on quality of life and health outcomes. HIV stigma can mean negative attitudes and beliefs about people with HIV. Stigma from HIV can lead to discrimination and affect the health and well-being of people with HIV. HIV stigma can also discourage people from getting tested, sharing their status and accessing HIV services. While stigma refers to an attitude or belief, discrimination is the behavior that results from those attitudes or beliefs. HIV discrimination means treating people with HIV differently than those without HIV, including asking if someone is “clean” or calling them “dirty” if they have HIV, refusing casual contact with someone with HIV, and assuming someone has HIV because of their identity or behaviors.
Meta needs to do more to protect vulnerable members of our community, particularly people living with HIV and LGBTQ+ people, from online hate speech because Meta’s failure to do so increases the likelihood of multiple forms of harm–both mental and physical. Even more so for people who hold multiple marginalized identities. HIV-related stigma and discrimination have detrimental effects on people living with HIV. HIV stigma is often associated with psychological distress, such as shame, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and quality of life. Hate content online towards people with HIV and LGBTQ+ people that violates Meta’s Community Guidelines can also certainly contribute to psychological distress, and Meta’s failure to properly intervene perpetuates the harm.
The United States has seen a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ political attacks in recent years, which has aided in promoting a culture of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people across the country. Examples of harmful legislation include efforts to remove gender identity from non-discrimination policies, efforts to prevent transgender and gender-expansive youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care, including counseling, and creating overly broad religious exemptions that undermine non-discrimination protections. These anti-LGBTQ+ attacks have created a more hostile environment and have enabled stigma, discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people. Social media is used as a vehicle to encourage or incite hate against LGBTQ+ people, so Meta must also do a better job to ensure its moderation policies do not allow hate speech to evade detection and continue to harm LGBTQ+ people. Meta has a responsibility to not allow hate speech to persist on its platform.
These attacks can also have an impact on the mental health of LGBTQ+ people, as transgender and non-binary people could be more susceptible to elevated mental health risks including depression, anxiety, and suicide. The Trevor Project’s crisis hotline received nearly 4,000 calls from transgender and non-binary youth in Texas in 2021 after state lawmakers introduced several discriminatory pieces of legislation against transgender and non-binary people. With very limited existing legal LGBTQ+ protections, Meta’s failure to adequately address anti-LGBTQ+ attacks on its platform exacerbates the harm against the community and sends a message to LGBTQ+ people that they are not worthy of protection.
Even though HIV can affect anyone, HIV does affect some communities more than others. Communities of color, specifically Black and Hispanic/Latino communities, and LGBTQ+ people are disproportionately impacted by HIV compared to the rest of the population. For example, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2021, Black/African American individuals aged 13 and older represented approximately 12% of the U.S. population but accounted for 40% of people with HIV. Hispanic/Latino individuals aged 13 and older represented 18% of the population but accounted for 25% of people with HIV. LGBTQ+ people are also disproportionately impacted by HIV, with key subpopulations including gay and bisexual men and transgender women. Gay and bisexual men accounted for about 23,100 (66%) new HIV diagnoses in 2019. Transgender people, specifically transgender women of color, are disproportionately affected by HIV, despite making up a smaller segment of the population. A CDC study where surveys conducted in seven U.S. cities found that four in 10 transgender women had HIV, with stark racial and ethnic differences in HIV rates among respondents. Sixty-two percent of Black transgender women and 35% of Hispanic/Latina transgender women surveyed had HIV, compared to 17% of white transgender women.
AIDS United and others in the HIV movement work tirelessly to fight against HIV stigma and discrimination. HIV stigma serves as a major barrier to optimal health care and treatment for people living with HIV. People with HIV experiencing stigma in healthcare settings also serves as a barrier to optimal treatment. Numerous studies suggest that experiences of HIV-related stigma resulted in lower access to HIV treatment, low utilization of HIV care services, poorer antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, and thus poorer treatment outcomes.
In addition to people with HIV, HIV stigma and discrimination also impacts the health of people not living with HIV. HIV stigma prevents people from getting tested for HIV to know their status and from speaking openly with their sexual partners about safer sex methods. If people with HIV do not know their status, they will not engage in HIV treatment and will not achieve viral suppression. When people with HIV take their HIV medication as prescribed, the HIV medicine reduces the amount of HIV in their blood (also called your viral load) to a very low level, which is called viral suppression. Viral suppression is critical for people with HIV to maintain healthy outcomes and live long lives. Viral suppression also prevents a person with HIV from transmitting HIV to their partners through sex. This factor alone makes HIV stigma and discrimination a public health issue as it not only negatively impacts the health of people with HIV, but also the broader community. HIV impacts us all, whether we like it or not. We all, including Meta, have a role to play in reducing HIV stigma in our society.
AIDS United strongly advises Meta’s Oversight Board to consider the severe consequences to human life that allowing harmful content, such as misgendering and harassment on its platforms can have on transgender individuals, particularly those living with HIV. The failure to not protect transgender people, and all LGBTQ+ individuals from such content not only further allows stigma and discrimination to continue, but also contributes to the already alarmingly high rates of suicide and violence within the HIV and LGBTQ+ communities. We believe that Meta has a profound responsibility to uphold and promote Corporate Social Responsibility by ensuring its platforms are safe and inclusive for all users, particularly those from vulnerable and marginalized communities. We urge Meta’s Oversight Board to implement Comprehensive Content Moderation Policies, policies that specifically address the unique vulnerabilities of transgender individuals. This means the immediate removal of all harmful content that implies violence against transgender people, and investing in online environments where all users, including transgender individuals and those living with HIV, can partake without fear of harassment or discrimination. We encourage Meta to lead with transparency in its content moderation practices. Such an action would demonstrate that Meta is accountable to the online community and is committed to creating a safer, more inclusive platform.
AIDS United would be happy to assist Meta in crafting additional guidelines for what constitutes appropriate online behavior or criteria for establishing whether appropriate safety has been achieved, including convening stakeholders to provide additional expertise. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please reach out to Christina Adeleke at cadeleke@aidsunited.org or 202.876.2824.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment.
Sincerely,
Carl Baloney, Jr.
Vice President for Public Affairs & Chief Policy Officer
AIDS United
Access based on gender identity vs sex, particularly in sports and gendered spaces, is a live political issue in the United States. Part of any debate is defining terms, which confers significant advantage to the side that gets to define the terms. “Misgendering” is one of those terms in dispute.
Removing posts solely for misgendering would be viewpoint discrimination in favor of one side, curbing free expression of the other side. The Oversight Board and Meta should not adopt this kind of political bias.
Globally women who defend our boundaries are being silenced. We - as lesbians, as women of faith, as post-trauma or vulnerable, or simply as human beings entitled to dignity, safety, privacy and democratic speech - say we do not accept that (for instance) trans women should be on lesbian dating apps, locked up in women’s prisons or competing unfairly. This statement is NOT hate speech. Silencing women asserting out rights is misogynistic patriarchy. This is NOT complicated if you view women (ie women who have experienced girlhood and puberty as female) as fully human with full rights and dignity. It is only complicated if you think women (collectively or individually) cannot say NO to men (whatever those men think they are). Your judgement on this case can either inflame the war on women, or set out clearly our human rights to freedom of speech, assembly and privacy. Please recognise and uphold the rights of women in this matter.
Statement Meta Oversight Board
Democracy, responsibility and a culture of debate
Secular, liberal democracy, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and academic freedom should be responsibly supported and enabled by social media with a liberal, fact-based culture of debate.
This can only work without allowing oneself to be completely one-sidedly taken over by totalitarian culture wars and identity politics informed by cancelculure. Through constantly intensifying cancelculture and totalitarian one-sided guidelines and technical possibilities. Which, unfortunately, are already being used alarmingly frequently by the national Facebook surveillance systems in a targeted, political and extremely trans-ideological manner against groups and individuals who are absolutely from the liberal-democratic spectrum. Even against the general Facebook guidelines.
Tightening the regulations even further means further destroying the already difficult but important culture of debate and completely excluding entire social groups, especially women, lesbians and girls, from their sexual, material and physical reality and prohibiting them from speaking and sharing about it. Plus to defend themselves against this with the right to stand up for their own needs with impunity. How can violence and discrimination against women on the basis of their biological sex be abolished?
Trans activism/ queer, women, citizens and self-ID
It must remain possible to use well-founded, critical arguments to communicate the current fierce conflicts of interest that have arisen due to the demands of trans activists. These demands and targeted strategies also include the fact that undemocratic conflicts that exist everywhere should not be named. This applies to society as a whole, but especially to women's rights, women's protection, women's sports and women's spaces, parental rights, the self-image of LGB people and many areas of law that are based on the category of biological sex. Men are also affected by this paradigm shift when the fact of biological sex is replaced at any time by a changing sense of gender. Through pure speech acts and fictions with completely unregulated self-ID laws.
However identified biological males do not have to participate in female sports. Once through male puberty makes male bodies unfairly stronger with more muscle and larger lung volume. However, sport is about fairness, which is physical. Not about social male sensitivities, which are currently increasingly being prioritized on the backs and to the detriment of women. The idea that women/girls should compete against biological men/boys is spreading worldwide. In professional and amateur, school and college sport, this is sometimes even more extreme. And in many countries, educational scholarships and good prize money are involved. This is outrageous expropriation of women. In terms of victories and money.
How many more generations of female athletes will be lost before these sports federations and committees stop postponing the problem and finally react with clear rules and simple, scientifically proven gender tests for male intersex conditions.
Discourse, objective criticism, naming scientific, evident facts and different needs should not be reinterpreted as discrimination, hatred and rejection in order to silence other people. Facebook should take a democratic stance. Or even better, counteract the totalitarian currents instead of continuing to install cancelculture.
This is a terrible idea and so much at odds with peoples right to free speech. It is a fact that no-one can change their biological sex, regardless of how much they may want to and referring to this fact has nothing to do with hate-speech whatsoever.
You are creating an environment that will be directly hostile to women - i.e. biological women and prevent us from discussing the very real dangers that are connected with allowing biological men posing as women or claiming to "be" women into womens safe spaces and competitions.
I am speechless that this could even be an issue at all - shame on you.
This is ridiculous to bar such videos particularly since they provide much needed information. They do not promote "hate speech" and gender critical people are not violent nor hateful. We are deeply concerned about the rights and the health and the safety of children, women and men. It is impossible to change one's sex, so we are not "misgendering" them. They are misgendering themselves.
Misgendering is a ridiculous term and in no way needs to be considered "hate speech" I have been misgendered and could not care less, it is at worst rude is someone does it purposely.
Stating the correct sec of a human being is not hate speech. All speech is protected under US law. We are allowed to express ourselves freely.
Women also come under attack daily on this site, yet it is only ruled “hate speech” when against a man who identifies as a woman. You do not ever take action on speech directed at women!
This issue is so very important to Women’s Rights. PLEASE do not erase us (biological women) or our rights to be autonomous and distinguished apart from female-identifying males. We need to be able to specify biological sex without it being labelled as hate speech. It is the truth, not hate speech or bullying. Please let us speak our truth. Women exist! Please do not let this be taken from us.