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
It is not hate speech to advocate for women’s rights. Noticing and commenting on biological sex when sex is relevant to women’s legal and civil rights is not hate speech. There should robust public debate about the trend of prioritizing gender identity rights over sex-based rights of women. Including males in women’s sports and allowing males in women’s changing and restroom areas is a legitimate area of public debate and comment. It is not hate to identify males as males or men. “Man” is not hate speech and advocating for our own sex-based rights, privacy, and safety is not a hate crime. Women and girls should neither be bulled nor silenced when we advocate for our rights, our safety, our privacy, and our own identities as women. To ban user or comments or content because a male has been accurately identified as a male is antithetical to community, debate, and women’s rights. Silencing women on this issue is a political choice and a poor one at that.
We need to be able to speak clearly and precisely when talking about someone's biological sex. It is not hateful to do so when the person identifies as a different gender. There are occasions when men identifying as women and demanding to be recognised as such infringe on women's rights, such as to single-sex spaces, women's sports and women's prisons. We cannot defend our rights if we cannot refer to such trans-identifying males as men. Therefore to ban 'misgendering' infringes on the freedom of speech of all gender-critical people.
In democracy free speech and to have an own opinion are fundamental rights. To tell the truth and criticize people and situations is not automatically hate speech.
If you ban reality and force people to lie, there is no democracy and no freedom, but totalitarianism.
To ban women to speak out true facts about men who f.e. abuse the possibility to change their name and gender to harm women and girls is not right.
To be a woman is biological reality and not a feeling. Because of their biology and their capability to give birth to a child, in many countries they are suppressed, excluded from education, they experience forced marriage, genital mutilation and rape.
There are basic differences between men and women.
It's ability of human's brain to recognize quickly if the person you see is male or female. Sometimes it's necessary to speak out the truth about a person instead of accepting the person's personal feelings.
What about trans women with a male body and organs?
Will we have to lie?
Please protect freedom and democracy.
Thank you
Words create our understanding of reality. That's why it is important to be accurate. A TINY minority group of people should not be allowed to distort the meaning of female and male. Much less, should they have the arrogance to DEMAND that everyone else change the meaning of
Words to suit them.
It's rich, that some people say WORDS are 'harming' them, insisting that those who disagree with them, "be nice", while they threaten and enact physical, emotional, financial and legal VIOLENCE against those speaking Truth.
SEX is real and immutable.
‘Gender’ is opinions created by a society and changes constantly. Like fashion, it is assigned by SEX.
Noting the truth is not hateful and should not be criminalized, as long as no harm is suggested against anyone. In the United States, we have a constitutional amendment permitting freedom of speech.
Orwells' book, "1984" was set in the last millennium and was an example of how NOT to be!
I am writing to voice opposition to requiring that users of Facebook/Instagram use "preferred pronouns." I believe such a move would:
- Disempower women who wish to protect female-only spaces and activities.
- Empower male sexual predators who identify as "lesbian" and pressure lesbians to date them.
- Restrict users' freedom of speech and belief.
- Compromise Meta's commitment to impartiality.
Neither of the two videos in question are examples of "hateful bigotry." Males have a biological advantage over females in sports, and much of this advantage remains even when males transition; it's reasonable for women and girls to feel like "male to female" trans people are cheaters when they compete on females' sports teams. And for many women, female-only restrooms are places of refuge and safety — particularly for women who have a history of being stalked and/or sexually abused by men; it's reasonable for women to be afraid of males in their restrooms, regardless of what gender the male identifies as.
Please let these videos stand, and don't let "pronoun enforcement" become official Meta policy. Thank you for considering my input!
Gender is not sex.there are two sexes. Identifying somebody by their correct sex, which is a scientific fact, is NOT hate speech.
The fight for women’s rights requires an understanding of sex
The biological distinction between men and women has been the criteria by which women have been discriminated against, excluded from public life, exploited, enslaved, sexually abused, and disenfranchised throughout history. Women are not asked how they identify or how they see themselves before they experience these things. Women’s feelings are wholly irrelevant to their condition and standing in this world.
While feminism has sought to improve women’s status by dismantling sex stereotyping, the concept of “transgender” depends on the continued existence and amplification of these same sex stereotypes. Women and girls are female whether or not they look, act, or live their lives in a stereotypically feminine manner. To believe that sex is determined by a gendered soul or feminine appearance is to believe that femininity is the same thing as being female. This belief is offensive and harmful to women.
Sex is objective and immutable, while gender is socially constructed and is harmful and oppressive to women and girls.
“Sex” and “gender” both have distinct definitions and criteria. Sex is an immutable characteristic based in reality. It is defined by reproductive function; a male produces sperm and a female produces eggs, gestates, and gives birth. The National Institute of Health (NIH) describes sex as “a classification based on biological differences . . . between males and females rooted in their anatomy and physiology. By contrast, gender is a classification based on the social construction (and maintenance) of cultural distinctions between males and females.” The World Health Organization (WHO) agrees, defining “gender” as “the socially constructed roles, behaviour, activities and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women.” WHO further notes that these socially constructed roles “give rise to gender inequalities, i.e., differences between men and women that systematically favor one group.”
A person who believes in gender identity believes that a woman is a person (male or female) who “identifies” as a woman. But a man identifying as a member of the female sex would mean identifying as a member of the reproductive class that produces eggs, gestates, and gives birth. Of course, that is impossible.
Women have single-sex sports for a reason
Even in the U.S., despite ostensible legal equality between the sexes, there are still significant disadvantages to being born female, including many barriers to women’s participation in sports. Including the increased risk of physical harm to women and girls participating in sports, the risk of sexual assault and abuse from coaches or other athletes, menstruation and its impact on the body, and the risk of pregnancy, wanted or not, and its impact on athletic performance — a uniquely female experience.
A female athlete does not escape any of these obstacles, nor does she gain any competitive advantage, by self-identifying as male. Likewise, a male athlete’s self-identification as female does not subject him to this same myriad of obstacles female athletes face, so he retains an innate competitive advantage regardless of his subjective identity claims.
Meta’s Bullying and Harassment Community Standard prohibits “cognizable attacks and calls for exclusion.” Calling a male participating in women’s sports male (or referring to him as a “man” or “boy”) is not exclusion. Male athletes could always participate in sports, limited only by their own ability and determination. Girls, however, have been systematically excluded from sports in the United States until very recently, with the culture only changing after being forced to by law (Title IX). When a boy takes a spot on a girls’ team, a girl has been excluded.
If calling out males who choose to take the spots of women and girls in athletics is considered “exclusion” and “hate speech”, then all support for women’s sports should be banned by Meta — because women’s sports inherently exclude men. Or, to put it in terms Meta may understand: This is a feature, not a bug.
Gender Identity is a pseudo-religious belief with no basis in reality that should not be forced on others
Freedom of speech includes the ability to express your belief in any number of scientifically absurd ideas — often called “religion.”
The disconnect of the metaphysical “gender identity” from the physical sexed body is comparable to the religious concept of a soul: “the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.”
Some religions may sincerely believe in the soul, and those individuals should have the right on Meta and elsewhere to express that belief. But, perhaps even more important, is the right to express the belief that one does not have a soul, regardless of what a prominent and powerful community may say.
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.
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 — which WoLF has directly witnessed.
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.
Proposed Policies
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.
Labeling misgendering as hate speech, while well-intentioned, infringes on freedom of expression. While respecting others' beliefs is important, compelling specific language use through hate speech rules sets a very concerning precedent.
What is identified as misgendering stems from genuine beliefs about biological sex rather than malicious intent. Banning such views, even if we disagree, closes open discourse on complex issues of gender and identity.
Additionally, language around gender is evolving rapidly. What might be considered respectful today is a significant regression in freedoms that existed only a few years ago.
Ultimately, balancing inclusivity with free expression is complex. But expanding hate speech rules to include misgendering will do more harm than good to open democratic discourse.
Free speech is vital on social media platforms. Gender identity is not a black-and-white issue like sexism or racism. Gender ideology is a belief that most people do not hold. An organisation cannot force people to believe in this in the same way that atheists cannot be forced to believe in a religion. Non-believers should not be punished for using language that is truthful, such as referring to a trans-identified man using male pronouns. To do so is not hate speech or bullying. It is the truth and it is based on biological fact.
To deny users the right to free speech on this matter is very concerning. There is a known conflict between gender ideology and women's rights. Gender ideology is rooted in misogyny and homophobia. To say we cannot discuss this matter is to deny the rights of 51% of the population in terms of women and 10% in terms of homosexual people.
Gender ideology is a cult. To disallow people who are not part of the cult to discuss the issues freely on your platform would indicate that the platform has been captured by this harmful and toxic ideology. It erodes women' rights and abuses vulnerable people such as children and those with a recognised mental illness.
The two examples in the case description are significant ones. Men and women need separate spaces such as toilets and changing rooms to protect their dignity and to keep them safe. If women cannot be sure that they are safe when in vulnerable situations then they may feel that they can no longer use facilities outside their homes. They may have to drop out of education, give up employment and miss out on other opportunities simply because they cannot use the bathroom. This will set women's rights back by 100 years.
It is clearly not safe for people with male bodies or who have been through male puberty to take part in women's sports. It is also profoundly unfair for women who are usually smaller and not as strong as men to be expected to play, race or fight against them in sporting fixtures where the sexes have quite rightly been separated to give them a level playing field. Women must be able to object to what is going on in their sports so that this injustice can be rectified.
Freedom to express unpopular opinions, such as the belief that biology determines gender and that one cannot change his or her gender is an important right. 25-30 years ago the belief that men and women could change their gender would have been the unpopular belief, but the right to publish those beliefs clearly helped lead to the place we are in now where it is a highly debated issue in our culture.
Meta should not moderate content related to "misgendering" or "transgenderism," regardless of whether the individuals involved are adults or minors. It cannot do so and remain a platform that upholds free speech. The concept of "transgenderism" is not settled science, and moderating discussions on this topic would effectively mean that Meta has picked a side. Meta must decide whether it wants to be a platform for free expression or one that advocates for a specific perspective in this ongoing debate—a debate that remains contested in both the political and medical spheres.
For instance, in the United Kingdom, the NHS's Tavistock Clinic has faced criticism for its inadequate care of children with gender dysphoria. This includes a lawsuit from an individual who alleges that doctors rushed to prescribe puberty blockers without addressing other underlying issues. Similarly, in the United States, there have been multiple lawsuits filed against healthcare providers related to body altering treatments, amounting to millions of dollars in damages. If Meta chooses to moderate discussions on these lawsuits or related news stories, it risks censoring public discourse, including future coverage of Supreme Court rulings or new legislation. Suppressing such discussions could even expose Meta to liability for stifling the voices of young individuals seeking guidance.
Furthermore, many states in the U.S. have enacted laws that prohibit hormone treatments and surgeries related to gender transition. By moderating speech in ways that exceed legal restrictions in these states, Meta could position itself as more restrictive than the laws in place, effectively taking the law into its own hands.
In conclusion, Meta should remain a neutral party in this debate and refrain from moderating content around this topic to prevent further loss of credibility as a free speech platform, avoid potential liability for promoting untested medical treatments by censoring opposing views, and avoid picking a free speech duel with state governments. If Tik-Tok can be banned, so can Meta.
The debate about the gender of athletes participating in women's sport and about males in women's protected spaces must continue to be possible on Meta.
Anything else would be a censorship of current socio-political debates that goes far beyond legal regulations.
Women's sport:
In sport, bodies compete against each other, not feelings. There are several hundred real differences between male and female bodies. These are by no means limited to differences in reproductive organs. In fact, sex differences are engraved in every cell of the body. The physical sex cannot be changed. It is determined by the chromosomes and remains the same throughout life.
The advantage acquired during male puberty compared to females is retained for life and cannot be compensated for by changing hormone levels. Some world sports federations already recognize this and exclude any participant from women's competitions who has only gone through part of male puberty.
Anyone who competes in women's sport with a male body is cheating on women. This must be clearly stated. It is a current social debate that is taking place in many countries. The ban on naming male participants as such is an inadmissible interference in these debates to the detriment of all women and girls.
About the subject of women's toilets:
The risk of women and girls becoming victims of sexual assault is massively increased in unisex toilets. The ban on naming intruding men as such deprives victims of any protection. This is because it means the abolition of women-only safe spaces. Unisex toilets are not women's toilets, but mixed facilities. Solutions are needed that meet both the protection interests of women and the interests of transgender people. This is also being debated in society. Censoring this important debate is a violation of women's rights. Gender recognition is hardwired into our brains and takes place in milliseconds. Women recognize men, even in female clothing, as men. And feel threatened.
In England, for example, it has been shown that schoolgirls refuse to use the unisex toilets because of frequent assaults and harassment by boys. Many girls are damaging their health and no longer drink enough to avoid going to the toilet. Girls who have their periods stay away from school on such days. It even has an impact on their educational opportunities and their health. And all this just because few transgender people want to have their identity confirmed? An identity that no one can verify and that can also be a pretext just to be able to enter women's spaces and have easier access to victims. A debate on these problems is only possible if the facts are allowed to be stated. And the fact is: Sex cannot be changed by identification. Feelings are not visible from the outside. But a person's sex is.
Sex and gender identity are not the same thing. Sex is real and verifiable. Gender identity is a feeling in the mind of an individual that no one can see or confirm from the outside. And no matter what gender identity a person has, their sex and the associated physicality remain the same. Assimilations can only ever be cosmetic in nature and are rarely good enough to make passing as the other gender work.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to encourage you to take action and ban misgendering as hate speech.
Misgendering is a form of discrimination and linguistic & political oppression. Using someone's correct pronouns is important, as pronouns are an important part of one's identity. Misgendering can have a number of negative impacts on transgender and non-binary people, including:
- Mental health: Misgendering can trigger anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. It can also lead to suicidality, disordered eating, and substance abuse.
- Social alienation: Misgendering can make people feel alienated from society.
- Invalidation: Misgendering can feel invalidating and deeply hurtful.
- Exposure to violence: Misgendering can expose people to anti-trans violence and unsafe experiences.
- Impact on relationships: Misgendering can negatively impact personal relationships and family dynamics.
I want to focus on the sociopolitical moment: currently there is a wave of violent rhetoric towards transgender people online, which includes misgendering and not believing trans people are who we say we are. When people online are allowed to belittle, intentionally call into question a person's identity, and misgender trans people, the impact is felt far beyond the Meta platforms; the way trans people are treated (and allowed to be treated) online directly translates to real world incidents of violence and discrimination.
Allowing misgendering online threatens the safety of trans youth and adults alike and further stigmatizes trans people. When misgendering is allowed online, and it is rewarded by promotion, likes and views, it creates a hostile, unwelcoming and unsafe environment in the virtual and real world.
Please take action and ban misgendering on your platforms.
The concept of “misgendering” is part of a belief system popular with a tiny percent of the global population. “Gender identity” is a part of that belief system which adherents believe is more important than biological sex in human lives — a position that is widely and strongly questioned and criticized for being anti-science and for the grave potentials for harming girls and women. Much worse than simply holding those beliefs, people who hold them demand all other people espouse the beliefs as well, on pain of censure and marginalization. To say this flies in the face of free thought and free speech ideals ascendant since the enlightenment isn’t an exaggeration. No group of people should be able to use the corporate power of the modern public square to enforce their beliefs on everyone else. Meta is a global corporation that reaches into the lives of billions of people. You have no right to favor the views and beliefs of just certain people and silence dissent. It would be no different from telling users that if they deny Jesus Christ existed they would lose their accounts. You have a grave responsibility with using your massive power in appropriate ways. Being the enforcer for political or religious activists is not responsible.
I emphatically resist making "mis-gendering" anyone an offense on META.
THe notion of gender is highly disputed and not defined in any cogenrent way across the Metaverse. It can even be argued that "trans" people misgender themselves by claiming an identity incongruent with their sex.
Such a criterion would be unapplicable and lend itself to abuse as some people would lodge vexatious complaints based on what they claim their gender is, with no way for arbiters of verifying such claims .
A trans woman is a man. He doesn't belong in women's spaces. Why are men's feelings considered more of a priority than the safety of women and girls?
The videos in question should not be categorized as hate speech or transphobic. They are categories of free speech that address issues of concern to the general public and should remain available as such.