केस विवरण
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.
टिप्पणियाँ
he debate about the gender of athletes in women’s sports and the presence of men in women-only spaces must remain open on Meta. Restricting these discussions would be tantamount to censorship, overstepping legal boundaries and stifling critical socio-political debates.
Women's Sports:
In competitive sports, physical attributes, not feelings, are what matter. There are significant differences between male and female bodies, extending beyond reproductive organs. These distinctions are embedded in every cell and cannot be altered. The advantages gained by males during puberty are permanent, even with hormone adjustments, leading some sports federations to exclude participants who have undergone male puberty from women’s competitions. Allowing male-bodied individuals to compete against women compromises fairness and must be openly debated to protect the integrity of women’s sports.
Women's Toilets:
The risk of sexual assault in unisex toilets increases when male-bodied individuals are allowed in these spaces. Preventing the identification of men entering such spaces removes crucial protections for women. Unisex toilets are mixed facilities, not women’s spaces, and this issue needs solutions that balance women’s safety with transgender rights. Censoring this debate infringes on women’s rights and compromises their security.
In England, evidence shows that schoolgirls avoid using unisex toilets due to harassment, with some even risking their health to avoid these facilities. The debate must be based on facts, including the reality that biological sex cannot be changed through self-identification, and gender identity remains subjective.
Censoring these discussions would be a profound violation of free speech, limiting discourse on one of the most vital socio-political issues of our time.
Women around the world use their phones in order to fend off actual threats of violence, bullying, and harassment. Documenting and sharing in real time has empowered women and girls to know that their experiences are not just documented events, but also valid by the support they receive from people responding to what women share.
In this way, Meta has set up Facebook and Instagram as business entities that mimic “the commons”. Meta’s operations have even expanded the boundaries of “the commons” beyond just geographical space to potentially include all of humanity in the virtual world of the internet. While it is currently true that Meta is a privately held company, if it doesn’t equitably serve the “community” needs of women and girls, one half the population of human beings, you threaten the long term viability for Meta as a privately held business or risk another competitor rising to fulfill the need (or both).
You might be thinking, but trans women are women and trans men are men and there are also the rights of non-binary people to also consider. My question to you is, by what measure? Sex is a coherent definable class or cohort of individuals consisting of the immutable, binary nature of human beings and categorized as either male (men) or female (women). Sexual orientation, also a coherently definable cohort is defined as either people attracted to the same sex (aka homosexuals further categorized as Lesbians/women, Gay men or Bisexuals) or people attracted to the opposite sex (or other sex, aka heterosexuals). There is no coherent way to describe or define what it means to be trans or nonbinary without referencing an individual's biological sex as a starting point. Put simply, a trans woman is a man and a trans man is a woman. And there is no such thing as opting out of one’s biological sex. A person is either male or female. In other words, there is no such thing as non-binary.
The issue of sexuality is relevant only because of the forced teaming which has served only to confuse and conflate the issues of sex, sexuality, and identity.
Banning bullying and harassment are definitely laudable goals. People need and deserve to live in a world where they are safe, have the freedom to speak freely, express themselves, explore ideas, share their experiences with others, and the list goes on. Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms have expanded humanities opportunities to do that by expanding “the commons” into the virtual world. But, ultimately, there is no reasonable rationale to include gender/misgendering in Meta’s bullying and harassment policies. The result would only serve to reinforce the confusion and conflation caused by efforts to create a “new” coherent cohort of human beings when there is none at the same time as impinging on and undermining the sex based human rights of women and girls.
Oversight Board Comment, Dia Kayyali
Summary: The Board should overturn Meta's decision on these posts because they should come down under the current language of both Meta's Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies. The Board should also consider recommending that Meta change the wording of the Hate Speech policy to ensure users understand that it covers misgendering and deadnaming, and should reconsider self-reporting and public figure aspects of Meta's Bullying and Harassment policy. Finally, the Board should consider asking Meta to commission a thorough review of transphobic content on its platform.
The content in question and a word about technical challenges
As a preliminary note, the announcement for this case seems to indicate that the Board didn't consider the applicability of the prohibition on claims about gender identity for Private Minors, Private Adults, and Minor Involuntary Public Figures in Meta's Bullying and Harassment Policy. Both videos in this case make claims about gender identity, and even worse the second video targets a minor, who did not seek notoriety but is instead an "involuntary public figure."
Context is key when it comes to most hate speech, transphobic content included. The Board has taken enough cases now to know that content moderation at scale, in particular when it uses automation, faces challenges understanding context. In fact, Meta already makes a significant number of errors at the aggregate level as part of its operations. Meta's most recent Community Standards Enforcement Report shows that under its Hate Speech policy, Meta actioned 7.2 million pieces of content and 1.2 million (16%) were appealed. Out of those appeals, Meta restored 157k pieces of content, 13% of appeals, or 2% of its total removals. 2% may seem like a small number, but that's 2 out of 100 posts, and it adds up quickly. Meta does make the disclaimer that not every restored post was taken down in error, but it could better make its case by complying with the many recommendations made by both the Board and civil society regarding transparency, especially around automation.
The Board's question about technical challenges calls attention to the potential for both under- and overenforcement in relation to transphobic content. Overenforcement could occur if Meta removes legitimate political debate related to transgender people, whereas underenforcement could occur if Meta leaves up content targeting and potentially endangering transgender people on the basis of their gender identity. However, allowing content that does not only state a political opinion, or even question the science of medical transition, but additionally targets specific trans people is a far cry from "political debate," and there are no indications that Meta is over enforcing. On the other hand, there are indications of underenforcement. In its Post in Polish Targeting Trans People decision, the Board called on Meta to "improve the accuracy of its enforcement on hate speech towards the LGBTQIA+ community, either through automation or human review..."
At the end of the day, given how content moderation is done at scale, including through the widespread use of automation, if measures that try to address transphobic content lead to overenforcement, it is not likely to significantly impact political debates, whereas underenforcement has far more documented and significant, impacts on trans people.
None of this is meant to argue that moderation at scale can't be better. Perfect moderation at scale certainly is impossible, and some mistakes are unavoidable. Part of deciding how aggressively to action content, i.e. how many mistakes are acceptable, is determining how important it is that the content comes down or stays up. It is Meta's responsibility to responsibly make this calculation. Meta's current calculation is almost certainly incorrect based on the available evidence.
Context
The sociopolitical context for transgender people in the United States has changed dramatically in recent years. Although visibility of trans people has increased, both violent crime targeting trans people and anti-trans legislation have also increased. Transgender people experience incredibly high rates of violent crime compared to the general public- a 2021 study from UCLA puts it at 4 times the rate. The most recent annual Human Rights Campaign (HRC) report on the topic noted that hate crimes based on gender identity increased over 32% from 2021-22. HRC has documented 24 murders of trans people in the US as of August 2024, and in 2023 the Trans Rememembrance project documented 53 violent deaths. It should be noted that all of this research faces serious methodological difficulties that lead to undercounting. In a recent report that encompasses hate crimes based on gender identity, the United States Government Accountability Office emphasized that better measurement of measure bias-related criminal victimization on the internet [would] help DOJ identify and provide assistance to communities affected by hate. "
The legislative attack on transgender rights has been extensive. 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care. Six of those make "it a felony crime to provide certain forms of best practice medical care for transgender youth." At least thirteen states also have laws that ban transgender people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Some of these are focused only on public buildings. Two states, Florida and Utah, go so far as to make it a criminal offense for transgender people to use bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity in some circumstances.
26 states also have laws and regulations that ban transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, leaving around 37% of trans students living in states that restrict their ability to participate in sports. Even trans friendly states aren't exempt; Missouri and Texas have tried to force gender-affirming care providers in Washington state to turn over medical records of trans patients, including kids.
One thread runs through this legislation: politicians and radical activists are now specifically targeting transgender youth. Some of the aforementioned bathroom bans are focused only on K-12 schools, and some schools in states without relevant legislation. This focus on kids is particularly troubling given that LGBTQ+ young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers and roughly half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered attempting suicide in 2023.
The global context for transgender people in sports that was on display during the Paris Olympics is also relevant. Recent research sponsored by the International Olympic Committee suggests that trans women and men are at a disadvantage relative to their cis counterparts in almost every measure, and trans athletes did compete at the Paris Olympics. However, it was a cis athlete who was presumed to be trans, boxer Imane Khelif, who has endured vitriolic transphobic hatred on social media. Khelif has since filed a cyberbullying complaint against several high profile individuals with the Paris Prosecutor's Office, and the Office confirmed to the press on August 14 that it was opening an investigation.
As described in greater detail in the next section, Khelif is not alone in her experience. Online harassment and bullying directed at trans people, and even cis people perceived to be trans, is key to understanding the context of this video.
Impact
Although the research done by civil society organizations and some academics has been groundbreaking and informative, there is still insufficient academic, peer-reviewed research related to the prevalence and impact of transphobic content, including how it may be linked to offline violence and how it may impact trans people's mental health. As explained in greater detail, the Board could make a recommendation that could help address this problem
That being said, the high level takeaway from the current research is that:
• transphobic content is prevalent on a variety of social media platforms, including Meta
• this content, along with overmoderation of content posted BY trans people, both negatively impacts the ability of trans people to use social media platforms and negatively impacts their mental health
• transphobic content is linked with real-world violence
• trans kids often rely on the Internet to access supportive communities and trans and gender diverse information
It important to accurately represent research, so to be clear: there's an obvious correlative link between transphobic content online and real-world violence. While the causative link needs more research, that's the case with almost all major content moderation issues- and the evidence in this area is significant if not conclusive. What's more, researchers have clearly documented the link between transphobic and antisemitic content, which Meta prohibits and the removal of which the Board has repeatedly and appropriately upheld. The 2022 Bratislava nightclub shooting explicitly targeted LGBTQIA+ people and the manifesto included several pages dedicated to mocking trans people. The Buffalo Shooter's manifesto largely replicated the manifesto of the Christchurch Call shooter, but it specifically included transphobic comments. It and claimed that the rise in "transgenderism" can be attributed to a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West. Similar ideas have been widely shared by white supremacist groups. As one report notes, "[t[his anxiety surrounding queer and trans children is a continuation of antisemitic discourses that frame Jewish people as predatory."
The increase in threats against gender affirming care providers, and the link to transphobic content is more clearly causative. This content does not even need to directly call on followers to commit violence. The account "Libs of Tik Tok", which exists on several platforms, exemplifies this. The account is run by Chaya Raichik, who recently stated that "she’s proud of being called a stochastic terrorist — someone who inspires supporters to commit violence by demonizing a person or group. " Media Matters documented " at least 48 instances of threats or harassment" against individuals and institutions targeted by Libs of Tik Tok post. In 2022, after the account falsely claimed on Twitter that Boston Children’s Hospital performs hysterectomies on children, the hospital received a barrage of harassment including threats of violence. Later, when a woman was charged with making a bomb threat, both her lawyer and Boston Children's Hospital argued that she was directly influenced by Libs of Tik Tok while in a vulnerable mental state. Similarly, in May 2022, " FBI agents arrested a California man who had threatened to kill a staff member of a Wisconsin school district that was shamed by Libs of TikTok." And particularly relevant to this case, the day after the Libs of Tik Tok account reposted a video of a physical assault that allegedly took place in the women's bathroom at a high school in upstate New York, and claimed that the perpetrator was "a male student who identifies as a girl," the school received bomb threats.
It should be noted that Meta has suspended Libs of Tik Tok multiple times, in particular when media attention was on the account, but reinstated it quietly after that attention waned. Given the constant targeting of private adults, it's unclear how Meta justifies the presence of the account on its platforms.
Potential recommendations
Below are some specific recommendations the Board could consider, keeping in mind that prioritizing freedom of expression means limiting egregious forms of content that make the platform hostile to marginalized users.
1. Ask Meta to commission and publish a third party audit of transphobic content on its platform
In other cases, the Board has called on Meta to conduct and publish research or HRIAs on its content moderation practices. The Board should make a similar recommendation in this case. If the Board considers a third party audit completely impossible to convince Meta to take on, it can at a minimum ask Meta to conduct an internal review with clear parameters that it makes available to the public in its Transparency Center.
If done well such a review could provide significant insight into the prevalence and moderation of transphobic content on Meta platforms. It is also worth noting that since Meta has shut down Crowdtangle, it is nearly impossible for anyone to conduct meaningful research. The Board recently made several very strong recommendations regarding Crowdtangle and the need for researcher data access, and hopefully thus recognizes why it would very important for any review of transphobic content on Meta platforms to be made public.
2. Make it clear that targeted deadnaming and misgendering are policy violations for everyone
Targeted deadnaming and misgendering should be specifically listed as policy violations. Tik Tok, Snap, and Discord have such policies, and Twitter had a clear prohibition on deadnaming and misgendering until Elon Musk took over and starting using the platform to himself target and harass trans people.
The Hate Speech policy rationale states that hate speech must be 1. a direct attack on 2. a protected characteristic. The policy also explicitly includes gender identity as a protected characteristic. In this case, the direct attack could be either the use of a harmful stereotype that has "historically been used to attack, intimidate, or exclude specific groups, and that are often linked with offline violence." It's worth noting that, while Meta lists some specific harmful stereotypes, the list is written as if it were exemplary rather than exhaustive. Deadnaming and misgendering could also fall under the current prohibition " Statements denying existence," as misgendering or deadnaming often amounts to denying the existence of transgender people.
Furthermore, and perhaps as importantly, in some contexts deadnaming can be intended to incite offline violence. This is particularly true when it is done in the context of doxxing or when a trans person draws the attention of individuals like Chaya Raichik. Dead naming allows offline identification and targeting of trans people, as well as their families.
3. Revisit the "self-reporting" and "public figure" aspect of the Bullying and Harassment policy
Where an identifiable individual is being bullied or harassed, violations should not have to be self-reported. Even if a specific individual doesn't feel targeted or isn't on a platform where they are mentioned, allowing such content intimidates all trans users. Many trans individuals who know they may be targeted also simply do not have the time nor the capacity to review hateful posts made against them. In fact, digital security experts regularly recommend people who are experiencing online harassment to have other people monitor accounts and document content for them in order to preserve their mental health. Meta should not be forcing traumatized people to relive their trauma on the platform over and over again simply in order to be safe. Finally, the fact that a figure is "public" does not mean that they are an acceptable target for hate, and in fact trans people in the public eye are more likely to experience harassment that is seen by others- for example, assistant secretary for health Rachel Levine noted that the attacks on her hurt " hurting the thousands of LGBTQ Pennsylvanians who suffer directly from these current demonstrations of harassment." There should not be any exception for public figures.
Reports and research:
Social Media Safety Index, GLAAD, documenting safety for LGBTQ people on social media platforms, published in 2024.
Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender-Expansive Community in 2024, Human Rights Campaign: documentation of fatal violence against trans people for 2024 through August
The Epidemic of Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in the United States, Human Rights Campaign: focus on fatal violence for the year from 2022 Trans Day of Remembrance to 2023 Trans Day of Remembrance, and declares a National State of Emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans, Published November 2023
LGBTQ Policy Spotlight: Bans on Medical Care for Transgender People, Movement Advancement Project, provides a comprehensive and up to review of legislative attempts to ban and restrict medical care transgender youth and adults, updated as of April 20, 2023
Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2017–2020, Bureau of Justice Statistics, published June 2022
Understanding the impact of Bell v Tavistock, Mermaids UK, A study that looked at how a UK Court ruling that set a near-impossibly high competence standard for minors to consent to medical treatment impacted trans kids, published December 2022
Sleeping with the Enemy: Sex, Sexuality and Antisemitism in the Extreme Right,
The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, documents the links between gender-critical theorists, radical accelerationists, transphobia, and antisemitism, published June 2022
Transphobia in the Buffalo Shooter’s Manifesto, VoxPol, Documents transphobic content, and its links to antisemitism, in the manifesto of the lone-wolf shooter who livestreamed his murder of ten people in a Buffalo supermarket, published June 2022
Correctly observing and stating a person's sex ISN'T bigotry or hate speech. Period.
The debate about the gender of athletes participating in women's sports and about men entering protected women’s spaces must remain possible on Meta. Anything less would be an unacceptable censorship of relevant socio-political debates that extends far beyond what is legally permissible.
On the Topic of Women's Sports:
In sports, bodies compete, not feelings. There are several hundred real differences between male and female bodies, and these go well beyond reproductive organs. These differences are ingrained in every cell of the body. Biological sex cannot be changed—it is determined by chromosomes and remains constant throughout life. The physical advantage that males gain during puberty over females is permanent and cannot be fully neutralized by altering hormone levels. Some international sports federations already acknowledge this and exclude anyone from women's competitions who has undergone even part of male puberty.
Allowing someone with a male body to compete in women's sports cheats women. This fact needs to be clearly stated. This is a current societal debate taking place in many countries, and banning the discussion of male participants as such is an unacceptable intrusion into these debates, to the detriment of all women and girls.
On the Topic of Women's Toilets:
The risk of sexual assault against women and girls increases significantly in unisex toilets. Banning the identification of men who enter these spaces denies victims any form of protection because it effectively abolishes women-only safe spaces. Unisex toilets are not women's toilets—they are mixed facilities. Solutions must be found that address both the safety concerns of women and the interests of transgender individuals. This is also a subject of ongoing societal debate. To censor this crucial debate is to violate women's rights. Gender recognition happens almost instantaneously in our brains—within milliseconds. Women recognize men, even when they are dressed in female clothing, and feel threatened.
For example, in England, it has been shown that schoolgirls are avoiding unisex toilets due to frequent harassment and assaults by boys. Many girls are harming their health by not drinking enough water to avoid needing to use the toilets. Girls on their periods are skipping school to avoid the discomfort of using unisex facilities. This even affects their educational opportunities and their health. All of this is happening just because a small number of transgender individuals seek to have their identity affirmed—an identity that no one can verify and that can even be used as a pretext to gain easier access to women's spaces and potential victims. A discussion of these issues can only happen if the facts are allowed to be spoken. The fact is: Sex cannot be changed by self-identification. Feelings are not visible from the outside, but a person’s sex is.
Biological sex and gender identity are not the same thing. Sex is real and verifiable, while gender identity is a personal feeling inside an individual’s mind that no one else can see or confirm. Regardless of gender identity, a person’s biological sex and physicality remain the same. Physical transitions are at best cosmetic and rarely sufficient to allow someone to convincingly pass as the opposite sex.
Banning these debates amounts to censorship and would severely restrict freedom of speech in one of the most critical socio-political discussions of our time.
It is unethical to force someone to lie. The is no such way or method to change one's sex and forcing others to go along with this lie is both injurious to the persons forced to parrot the lie and I would argue to society as a whole.
This idea that one is given cover by Meta to force someone to go along with something that is against their religious beliefs and against material is wrong and hateful. What gives YOU the right to dictate what my free speech rights are?
This is a form of oppression. This is tyranny. Do not do this! The public hasn't even had enough time to understand yet the long term negative implications in limiting free speech like this. This seems more like living under Putin's rule than living in the United States of America!
What about survivors of rape, incest or Human Trafficking? Are you going to silence them when they know they were raped by a man? Why is the man's rights considered MORE important than the victim's of his crime?? Why are you silencing WOMEN, MOTHERS, WIVES, and DAUGHTERS this way?
Women have always been discriminated against, excluded from public life, exploited, enslaved, sexually abused and disenfranchised because of their biological sex. This is decided solely by their physical characteristics, which they have had since birth and which are genetically determined. Never has a woman been asked about her feelings, which are the basis of a gender identity (!), before she has been treated negatively in the ways just mentioned.
It makes no difference whether a woman appears to be tomboyish or is aggressive with her charms and thus conveys a clichéd image of women to the outside world. These two stereotypes are used by the concept of "transgender" to redefine the term "woman". As a result, "woman" is understood to mean a very specific appearance, including clothing, make-up, hairstyle and behavioral patterns that correspond to this clichéd appearance. This is insulting and sexist towards all women.
Biological facts are unchangeable
Physical biology is determined by the genetic information provided. This takes place before birth. This genetic information is unchangeable. It not only determines the appearance of a person and therefore of women, but also the biochemical processes inside the body. These processes differ from biological men to biological women. And these differences remain even if men or women undergo surgical procedures to bring them visually closer to the opposite sex. A change of sex is impossible because the internal organs are also typical for women and men. Hormone therapy is seen as an additional way out of this dilemma. However, this is an artificially induced change to special biochemical processes in the body that does not affect the genetic information, but irrevocably changes the body afterwards and also has serious health side effects because the body is not suitable for the hormone therapy in question due to its genetic information.
Information about these circumstances is of immense importance for the protection of women, because once decisions have been made, they are irreversible. You cannot reattach a breast that has been amputated. A body that has been altered with male hormones cannot be reversed. Ruined health due to such measures is and remains ruined and the woman remains a lifelong patient of various doctors. There are enough reports about women who have tried to escape their biological body with surgery and hormone therapy and bitterly regret it. The reason: inadequate information and pressure from society, which manifests itself in many ways, e.g. due to negative treatment of the female biological sex or by supporters of the transgender concept.
A safe haven for women
As already mentioned, women are disadvantaged in many respects due to their biological gender. That is why it is so important that women stand up for their rights as a group. Biological facts are important. They determine a woman's daily life in health as well as in illness, at work as well as in private life. It is therefore important that women have a place of retreat that is suitable for them, even in public spaces. This increases their safety. This not only includes changing rooms, public toilets, saunas, hospital rooms and much more. Women's sport also falls under this category.
Because physical biology also determines performance. There are enough studies that objectively prove the performance spectrum of women and men. There is virtually no overlap, but depending on the sport, women who compete against a biological man who "feels" like a woman run a high risk of injury and have virtually no chance of winning.
Public debate on all these points and more must be maintained to protect women's rights. Facts must not be negated, disregarded or banned because of a feeling. Facts are not hate speech or bullying. Facts are also provable. Feelings are not; feelings cannot be measured and are subject to permanent change.
Freedom of expression and religious belief
In addition, there is the expression of one's own opinion. That is a very valuable asset. If women are no longer allowed to name what they see and are then forced to ignore their perceptions, sometimes even with penalties, then that is brainwashing. Such an intervention is unacceptable and psychological violence against women. Because there are enough characteristics on the respective body that indicate the biological sex. These include not only the recognizable breast in women and the bulge in the crotch in men. There are also features such as: Larynx, forehead, pelvis, voice, broad/narrow shoulders, body hair (especially on the face). With the exception of a small number of people who have androgynous features, these characteristics are used by the majority of people to distinguish between male and female. Recognition takes place within a few seconds in a person's brain. This perception is not trained, it is hardwired and is part of a person's basic equipment. To negate it would mean rejecting one's own biology.
Biological facts must still be allowed to be addressed. Perception must not be suppressed and artificially altered through punishment.
The situation is similar with religion. There are religions for which there are biologically and socially only two genders, nothing in between and also not changeable. These religions, whether large or small, are discriminated against if they are forbidden to make their beliefs known in public and to stand up for their world view. The followers of these faiths are muzzled. This unequal treatment is unacceptable and pure discrimination. It must also be possible from the point of view of faith to distance oneself from the concept of "transgender" and to state why. This in turn leads to the discussion about protected retreats based on biological gender.
Civil debate about gender identity should never be classed as “hate speech.” Open discourse on the topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine. Women (or any person for that matter) expressing gender critical beliefs or anyone expressing a belief that is not inline with gender identity theory should not be categorized as spewing hate speech. Given that the idea of a gender identity is still very much so debated, categorizing any discussion that challenges this idea or a person who expresses views contrary to gender identity theory as hate speech not only silences people with valid concerns, but it also increases bias and discrimination. We’ve seen the harm that silencing dissenting voices cause within various organizations and communities, and I really hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going. Instead, Meta can continue to serve as a platform where people from different groups, beliefs, and backgrounds can come together to discuss different theories and ideas, this includes those who hold beliefs contrary to gender identity theory. What should be advocated for is the respect for those who hold different ideologies or different view points. This is bound to build a bridge amongst different groups, not silencing a particular group of people because they share or express a belief that is not inline with what mainstream society orthodoxy. Meta should uphold its commitment to diversity and therefore serve as a place where meaningful discourse around the topic is had, highlighting its crucial place as neutral party that allows for true debate to occur and not a biased platform where wrong think is championed and only one voice is allowed. I hope you take this into consideration and you do not take the route of silencing people.
The idea that a video of someone disagreeing with someone else is considered hate speech is absolutely ludicrous. Your request for comments is based on the presupposition that disagreement with a person can even possibly be a form of hate, and society has and will continue to demonstrate this to be a laughable premise.
- If an Atheist disagrees with a Christian, does that mean they hate them? I would assume not.
- If a Republican disagrees with a Democrat, does that mean they hate them? Of course not.
- If a Giants fan disagrees with a Raiders fan does that mean they hate them? Obviously not.
- If a person disagrees with another’s sexual predilections does that mean they hate them? Yes? That makes absolutely no logical sense, and we must restore logic to common discourse.
Women’s Declaration International (WDI) is a global, nonpartisan group of volunteer women dedicated to protecting women’s sex-based rights. WDI USA is its U.S. chapter.
The Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights (the Declaration) was created to lobby nations to protect women and girls on the basis of sex rather than “gender” or “gender identity,” based on well-established principles of international law.
Article 1 of the Declaration reaffirms that the rights of women and girls are based on the category of sex. The inclusion of “gender identity” in a legal definition of sex necessarily replaces sex with “gender identity,” a claimed feeling based on sex-based stereotypes that harm women and girls. The conflict is unavoidable: Either sex is immutable and biologically based, or it is changeable and based entirely on a subjective feeling. If a man can be a woman, the sex category “woman” cannot be protected in law from historic and ongoing discrimination.
Article 4 reaffirms women’s rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, including the right to hold and express opinions about “gender identity.” This is consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Article 7 of the Declaration reaffirms the rights of women and girls to the same opportunities as men and boys to participate actively in sports and physical education, consistent with Article 10 (g) of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and with the original intentions of Title IX Education Amendments of 1972.
As Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at UCLA and consultant to the IOC medical commission has noted, “We separate men and women into categories because we want women to be able to win some competitions. There is a 10% to 12% difference between male and female athletic performance.” Significant differences in the average bone density, heart size, lung volume, hemoglobin levels, and musculoskeletal development of men and women, among other physical differences, result in men being able to generate higher speed and power during physical activity. Even after two years of testosterone suppression, males retain physical advantage over females, especially when it comes to speed and upper body strength.
Article 8 of the Declaration, reaffirming the need for the elimination of violence against women, asserts that “violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women as a sex are forced into a subordinate position compared with men as a sex,” and that single-sex provisions should include those that “promote the physical safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls.”
Allowing males, including school boys, into designated female-only spaces such as public restrooms, changing rooms, showers, spas, and so forth, has disastrous consequences for the safety, privacy, and dignity of women and girls, including voyeurism, exhibitionism, filming women while using facilities, sexual assault, and rape.
As to the rights of “transgender people,” nobody is “transgender.” The men and boys who call themselves “transgender” claim to be what they are not, and thereby demand access to women’s public bathrooms and women’s and girls’ sports; they are, however, men and boys, based on objectively verifiable and immutable reproductive biology. Men and boys have the protection of all of the laws and policies of the federal, state, and local governments – as men. Humans cannot change sex. Women and girls, along with all other citizens, should have the right to reject the lie that some men are women, without being censored. “Hate speech” policies that prevent people from referring to a man as a man are dangerously anti-democratic. Free speech must not be curtailed because a man’s feelings might be hurt by being called a man. If we cannot tolerate hurt feelings, we cannot tolerate democracy.
Thank you,
P. Laurie Pavón
Signatory to the Declaration
Lake County, California USA
I would like to comment that in the USA we have the freedom of speech and by banning gender labeling as hate speech and hate crimes is taking away this right. Stating a personal experience such as this: last week in the yoga studio I was mistreated by 2 6ft tall trans women while changing after class. I should be able to speak about my own safety and concerns for being mistreated and this should not be labeled as a hate crime, and if anything it’s females born with female reproductive organs that the hate crimes are taking place against. In this case that is how I felt. Label's such as how a person identifies is that individual's right to label themselves as such but it’s not hateful for a person to speak about concerns such as young girls in public bathrooms whom may be at risk and are vulnerable to crimes such as rape and abuse or the safety of females to share locker rooms with men could be taking advantage of self identifying as a female but do not dress or look the part, that have fully intact male sex organs and may even be convicted of sexual misconduct crime, for men to be allowed into gamble protected space is not actually safe for women. We should have the right to voice concern and share experiences and when this is taken away and wrongly labeled as “hate crimes” & “hate speech” this is actually proving that this is hate against women and young girls.
Facebook and social media is a space for people to share what they are experiencing and should be allowed to tell truthful accounts and raise suspicion when vulnerable people are being exposed to potentially dangerous and harmful circumstances.
I would like it if you not attempt to force me to use language I don't want to use. Surely "hate speech" is something more than just calling someone that which they don't like...even if they really REALLY don't like it. Unless facebook's personal agenda is to FORCE the acceptance of trans ideology onto all of it's users, please stop considering policing our language. I suggest you let everyone speak as they will and remember that EVERY ONE is able to block, unfollow, and otherwise NOT engage with anyone that hurts their feelings. I don't like this weird, doting, paternal smack-down.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not hate speech, it is an essential element of humans and their language. Do not ban this for God’s sake, please!!!
All issues related to gender identity are extremely contentious throughout the world. These issues include so-called gender-affirming medical care, especially for minors, which involves irreversible treatments that can destroy young people's fertility and sexual function and do permanent damage to their developing bodies, including to their bone and brain health. Other issues surround people who have gone through male puberty participating in women's sports, where they have insurmountable physical advantages. Then there is the problem of people with physically intact male bodies being allowed into women's prisons, women's domestic violence shelters, and other spaces that were created as places where females could feel safe and could disrobe and use bathroom and shower facilities without any males present, for their own privacy, comfort, dignity, and safety.
It is important to note that what underpins the notion that one can change gender is a theory, which traces its roots to theoretical academics from the social sciences. Everything about this theory is fiercely contested because it is entirely unfalsifiable. Many consider it to be religious in nature, as the idea of a gendered soul inhabiting the "wrong" body is metaphysical and cannot be shown to be based in physical reality. Furthermore, many things about this theory are contradictory; for example, we are told that children "know who they are" and that their gender identity is fixed from early childhood; at the same time, we are told that gender is fluid for many people, who can lean towards a female gender identity one day and a male gender identity the next day. Meanwhile, there is the question of what exactly a gender identity is. How can a male know what it feels like to be a female, and vice versa? No one can ever actually change sex. No male can ever menstruate, get pregnant, or give birth. So when he says that he "feels like a woman," does this simply mean he is drawn to traditionally feminine dress or interests? If so, couldn't he simply be a man who does not conform to masculine stereotypes?
There is much more I could write about this, but the point that I want you to take away from this is that Meta should not take a side in these contentious debates, unless they want to alienate the majority of their users. A Gallup survey conducted in May of 2023 found that 69% of the American adults surveyed believed that it is wrong for males to compete in female sports (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/americans-oppose-inclusion-trans-athletes-sports-poll-finds-rcna88940), a 7% increase since a similar survey in 2021. The same survey revealed that in that same timespan, the number of Americans who said that "changing one's gender" was morally wrong rose from 51% to 54%.
If Meta starts kicking its users off of Facebook or Instagram for "misgendering" people or asking perfectly valid questions about why an unproven and unprovable theory must be affirmed and promoted throughout our society, then I and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of users will simply delete our accounts, rather then submit to being told what we are allowed to believe and discuss. You have an obligation to your shareholders, which include my husband and me, not to ruin your brand by taking sides in this divisive issue. Look at what happened to Bud Lite as a brand: it hasn't recovered since it used a trans influencer in its advertising. Please don't become the Bud Lite of social media.
Thank you so much for reading this and thinking about what I've said!
Using biologically correct language should never constitute 'hate speech'. Truth that can be proven by science is accurate and should be the chosen method we use on public social media platforms when referring to individuals by their natal sex.
As a woman who believes that there are only two biological sexes and that the 'experience of gender' should not and cannot override physical and genetic 'sex ', I know that being able to protest about these issues and to not be forced to call a male 'she', when it is obvious they are not, (especially when they invade women's spaces and take over women's sporting events) is important. It is only by being able to defend the spaces and rights of women and girls that we can maintain our right to be a distinct category of being and that should be deemed to be "hate speech: or “Bullying and Harassment” but rather a valid protest about our boundaries being violated.
So-called "misgendering" pulled my daughter out of depression and self hatred. It is not "hate speech", it is truth and real love. Please do not ban it on Facebook.
My daughter is a smart, sensitive kid who is a survivor of early childhood sexual assault. When she was approaching puberty, I knew it would be a difficult change for her, it’s difficult developing into a woman and the attention that brings. But to make matters worse, Covid lockdowns had her stuck at home, isolated from friends, terribly depressed, and she was exposed to gender identity/transgender ideology online that told her that if she wasn’t sufficiently feminine enough, she might not really be a girl. She may be a “he”, or a “they”, and her parents wouldn’t understand. This ideology was pushed through our culture, institutions, at her school, Democratic politics/law, by her friends, seemingly everywhere. It was confusing for her. She was essentially socialized into disassociating from her body and genuinely believed she was transgender, and then non-binary. As a parent, it was heartbreaking to see a once happy, confident child turned to hate her healthy body. I tried to tell her she was strong and beautiful, but she was struggling. She was constantly angry, and told me I was transphobic for not being supportive of body modification through drugs and surgery. I told her she was perfect as she is. I told her as a girl, she could cut her hair, dress like boy, date a girl, break any stereotype, and do anything a boy could do in our free country, but she would always be a girl/woman because people cannot really change sex. I refused to call her by wrong sex pronouns, I "misgendered" her with all my heart. As post-Covid normalcy gradually returned and my daughter matured, after two difficult years, she desisted. Now she is a happy, confident, responsible young woman, comfortable in her own skin, who would tell you that a few years ago she was “confused about a lot of things.”
When my daughter was going through this difficult time, I started researching gender identity and trans ideology. I am not religious. I have a degree in psychology and marketing, with an emphasis on research methods and statistics. I had never really thought much of this seemingly niche topic until I researched it. Gender identity is essentially the belief in a gendered soul and is unfalsifiable, unproven. I was shocked and profoundly disappointed to learn that so called “gender affirming care” is absolutely NOT evidenced based, and is in fact malpractice for minors. One could argue it’s elective/cosmetic/religious for adults, but for children it is the greatest medical scandal of our time. The ideologically corrupt WPATH pushed an “affirmative” approach that essentially grooms children first socially and then medically to “transition” into lifetime medical patients/customers, whereas studies show most children would grow out of their gender dysphoria by going through puberty and/or escaping the grooming, as my daughter did. Children who are homosexual, autistic, or survivors of trauma are especially vulnerable to being taken in by this ideology. The Cass Review, the independent systematic review by pediatrician Dr Hillary Cass for NHS England, as well as reviews conducted by other European countries are enlightening and put the profit-motivated US “Gender Medicine” Industry to shame.
Our children's mental and physical health is being harmed by ideologues who want to organize public life around sex stereotypes instead of the biological reality of sex. We need freedom of speech to talk about this, even if it hurts some people's feelings. Sometimes truth is hard to hear, but the most loving thing we can say. I am so sad for my country that we are at this Orwellian moment where Meta would even consider enforcing such newspeak and censorship. Please do the right thing.
Stating what a man and a woman is online should never be a crime.
Not everyone believes in "gender," as genderists define it. If you pass this ruling, it is equivalent to telling people they cannot say, to a Christian perhaps, that Christianity is not real. People do not have the right to /not/ be offended in a public space, and it is not hateful to offend someone with what you believe or disbelieve. Calling a man or woman who believes he or she is the opposite sex, by their actual sex, is also not inciting violence. And making the comparison itself is abusive. It is equivalent to an abuser saying, "If you don't agree with me, or give me X obeisance, I will kill myself." You must punish people who do actual, or incite actual, violence. If I said a black person was black, and racist killed them, it would not be my fault for pointing out their race. In fact, if we are to combat racism, we /must/ discuss race. The same goes for pointing out sex. If you want to combat so-called transphobia, you must also discuss it freely; that means that a person who is trans-identified must be able to be publicly defined as such, as in they are one sex who wishes to live as another.
This proposal is not healthy or fair, and I'm frankly disturbed by how quickly it seems to have been open for public comment then closed; as if the party in favor was trying to pass this amendment as soon as possible, without drawing attention. If you want to defend free speech, and enjoy it, you /must/ preserve the right for people to say offensive things, and prepare to be offended. Offense is not the same as violence. Conflating the two is anti-democratic and fascist.