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
To Whom It May Concern:
A uniform ban on “misgendering” on the meta platform is deeply misguided. To place using the correct, sex-based pronouns in the same category as genuine pejoratives or slurs against persons based on race, ethnicity, religion, immigration status, disability, sexual orientation, or gender is not only a means of cheapening the meaning of actual hate speech, it has the potential to ban individuals who simply are unaware of the gender ideology phenomenon. Not all persons subscribe to gender ideology and thus do not partake in a game of pronouns.
To maintain integrity of the term “hate speech,” as well has to maintain freedom of press, speech, and expression as per the First Amendment, I hereby urge you to vote NO in favor of including “misgendering” under hate speech categories.
Thank you.
C.C.
I don't think it's hate speech to call transwomen men. Many people sincerely consider them men, without hating them.
Calling someone by their biological sex is not hate speech.
Hello, I need to submit an appeal for my facebook account please, I can no longer login to my facebook account to check my inbox or status of my appeal process.
My appeal number is # 1550805852172811
Dear Members of the Oversight Board:
Thank-you for this invitation for public comments. The Oversight Board's consideration of the Hate Speech, Bullying and Harassment Policy (HSBHP) that governs the huge platforms of Facebook and Instagram is an extremely important moment in the evolving landscape of social media and the public's ability to thrive, to speak freely, and to participate in on-going public and political debates.
My comments here are abbreviated. I would be more than happy to provide more indepth reflections to the Oversight Board at another time. Here I would like to provide context for the HSBHP and for the specific concepts under consideration, that is "gender identity" and "transphobic" or "transphobia".
Following the publication of the Yogayakarta Principles and the Yogayakarta Principles+10, a sea change in the law and policy of many nations around the world has promoted "gender identity" as a replacement for biological sex in law and policy. This change has elevated a mystical inner experience of "true identity" into what purports to be a "fact" that demands recognition and deference from individuals and the state. This affirmation of "true identity" within a secular democracy is laughable from this historian's point of view. There is no "true identity" of anyone. Each person is an ever evolving, ever developing living individual. Reification of "identity" is a fiction. What is a "gender identity" other than some type of slippery ego ideal? Who has it or does not have it? What if your gender identity affronts my gender identity? Whose takes priority?
Currently in the USA we have the aggressive advancement of "trans rights" at the expense of so-called cis-gender females' rights. This is the case when biological men (in short-hand, those with Y chromosomes) claim the right, via their inner feeling of "feeling like a girl" or "feeling like a woman", to access places and resources that have been cordoned off specifically for biological women and girls. Such spaces and resources include inter alia restrooms, changing rooms, spas, prisons, sports teams.
Consider for a moment: what does it even mean to claim an "identity" based solely upon one's inner feeling? If anyone asked me, do you "feel like" a woman, I would say, no, not really, but I am in fact biologically a woman. What is this nebulous feeling that is now so all powerful? Who can say? While this might make good poetry it makes devasting law and policy.
The blanket policy of allowing biological men into spaces built and intended for women and girls is a predator's dream. Certainly not all biological males are predators, but on the other hand, nearly all who prey on women and girls are biological males. The inability to exclude biological males from places of intimacy and vulnerability exposes women and girls to very real dangers. Harms will inevitably arise from teaching women and girls that they do not have the right to claim their own privacy.
The Oversight Board is considering whether it should outright prohibit the ability of women and girls to speak up in defense of their own safety. That is appalling. Who would have thought that such egregious erosion of the rights of women and girls would feature in the legal landscape of the 21st Century in Western Democracies?
The Oversight Board is also considering whether it should prohibit the ability of women and girls to advocate for their own sports teams. Again this is appallingly regressive and deeply offensive to all those who cherish and uphold the rights of women and girls. The litany of biological advantages of males over females in sports is well known. Anyone who has ever played sports knows male advantage. To deny these is to deny fundamental physical realities of humanity. The ingrained misogyny of our institutions and the aggressive tactics of trans-rights activists seek to not only push women and girls to the margins of their own sports but also to make it illegal to even discuss or protest such marginalization.
To allegations of "transphobia", I would pose the question: who is bullying whom? Maybe what we are really witnessing is trans hatred for biological women and girls. Such hatred is called "misogyny" and good historians can explain in detail how misogyny has shaped human cultures throughout known history. The successful fight for women's rights in Western countries notwithstanding, there is always the possibility of losing our rights. Indeed, those rights are clearly under attack.
I challenge the Oversight Board to thoroughly search Facebook and Instagram for instances of Trans-Rights activists bullying women and girls. Read the numerous posts and comments that call for attacks on women and girls who seek to defend their own rights. Indeed, in the cases under consideration here, the Oversight Board itself it entertaining the idea that the defense of women and girls' rights to privacy, to safety, and to fair sporting competition is somehow "hateful" and "bullying". Look at the injuries suffered by female athletes when forced to compete against biological males, and you tell me, who is bullying whom?
Mr. Zuckerberg recently voiced regret for bowing to government pressure to tamp down speech regarding the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The issues here are of similar importance in our public debates and considerations of law and policy. Meta should not take up the misogynistic stance of disallowing advocacy for the rights of women and girls. Meta should instead recognize that such political speech is inherently valuable for our democratic society.
Finally, the root of gender ideology is a medical practice that itself is mired in controversy (see: The Cass Review) and that is considered by many to be unwarranted and exceedingly harmful medical experimentation on a generation of vulnerable children and youth. The Oversight Board should not foreclose speech and debate on this highly profitable and hubristic field of medicine that sterilizes and maims our young people.
The Oversight Board should promote free speech, should stand up firmly for the rights of women and girls to advocate for their own rights, and should turn its attention to the very real problem of misogyny and rampant violent pornography on its platforms.
To categorize the debate about transgender issues as hate speech is a form of gaslighting. This topic is of particular importance to women’s rights, gay rights, medical research, and the ethics of pediatric medicine.
There is no bullying or harassment involved by simply bringing to light the ongoing controversies that surround the debate around transgender rights, women’s rights, children’s protections, gay and lesbian rights, and the deep disagreement that exists among the medical profession as to the efficacy and ethics of the current standard of gender care for children, adolescents, and young adults. By accusing people who bring these controversies to light as bullies or harassers is in itself a kind of bullying and silencing of free speech.
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.
Women have been taken advantage of, encroached upon, and have had silence forced upon them for sharing their feelings and lived experiences. This unfortunately has been experience of many women and girls throughout the millennia. Facebook and Instagram are considering joining this subjugation of women with this action.
What is happening to women the world over is alarming. Gender ideology was brought in by stealth, with no warning and no consultation with women. Men are not women ever. Women fighting for their sex-based rights is not hate. Calling a man he/him is based in reality. A judge in Australia recently said that it is possible for a man to change his sex and thus threw all women under the bus regarding their spaces, services, events being free from men. The Paris Olympics had two men in women's boxing, literally punching women in the face. It was heartbreaking seeing the women upset, angry and then for some inexplicable reason apologizing for their 'outburst'. We know the IOC does not care about female athletes or why would there by three men on the podium in the women's 800m event in 2016? Gender ideology is just that, an ideology, a belief system, a culture-bound syndrome brought on by many forces. This is not a grassroots movement, but a men's sexual rights movement. People are accused of 'transphobia' when they push back and want to protect women in their most vulnerable and private spaces. Rapists and pedophiles are in female prisons right now. "Transwomen" are in changerooms with little girls and overnight excusions, often without parents knowledge. This is a calamity what is happening to women and girls the world over. I want to go back to when we used the terms like 'transexual' and 'transvestite', not some made-up policial term like 'transgender'. No one really cared when John down the road called himself Janet and put on a dress. No one cared until the 'we just want to pee' people demanded to be called actual women and demanded to be where women are naked and vulnerable, and in female prisons and sports. Its absolutely insane and I will never call a man she/her and will always call out a man in a female space I am in. Many women won't consent to their name being published as the attacks from Trans Rights Activists are relentless and scary. https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-summary/
I am a certified international human rights consultant, and work for a feminist organization in the United States. I also serve as a delegate to the UN Conference on the Status of Women. Transgender ideology asks something of us that has never been asked in the history of human rights: it demands that we take hard-won rights from one historically marginalized group, and hand them to a newly declared one. That fact ought to give everyone pause. When women won the right to vote in 1920, men's rights to vote were unaltered. Civil Rights were achieved in the United States in the 1960's, and no rights were taken away from white people. Yet transgender ideology requires that women give up placement in their own sports category, privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms, for males who only have to say they are transgender to access these spaces. There is a rape trial underway in California for a male inmate that declared himself transgender to be placed in the women's prison. He has raped two women in the women's prison January. Victims will be told by the judge to refer to this man as a 'she', which is compelled speech. You could argue that the judge is forcing rape survivors to misgender their rapist, elevating his rights above theirs. Misgendering should not be considered hate speech, nor should it be banned. It is but one aspect of transgenderism that is in direct conflict with women's rights. Banning that speech does not remove the conflict, but will mean that women and girls cannot raise concerns about the loss of their rights.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important and highly sensitive issue. I recognize that this topic evokes strong emotions from all perspectives, and I appreciate your commitment to approaching it with care and thoughtful deliberation.
These two videos are part of a larger dialogue about how to balance the accommodation of transgender people with the long-recognized need of women for single-sex spaces. Videos like these play a critical role in the broader public conversation, on some of the most contentious issues surrounding transgender support. Conversations on contentious topics are messy : not everyone expresses themselves with perfect politeness, not everyone keeps their temper. However, it is important that Meta not become the language police in such public conversations. Meta should continue to focus on well established criteria of harassment and bullying, instead of diluting the meaning of those terms by labeling every instance of rudeness as bullying.
While 'misgendering' is considered impolite by many today, it’s important to remember that what we now call misgendering was both socially acceptable and grammatically correct just a decade ago. Categorizing ‘misgendering’ as hate speech hurts those who are not up on the latest in politically correct speech, such as the elderly and the non-college educated. Additionally, some individuals use misgendering as a way to emphasize their political belief that gender identity and biological sex are distinct, and that biological sex should be the determinant in segregated spaces. As such it has some similarities to the “river to the sea” slogan that Meta recently declined to label as hate speech. Censoring speech based solely on misgendering undermines people’s ability to fully express their political viewpoint.
Sex segregated bathrooms and sports are particularly interesting because polls have shown that the majority of Americans are actually in favor of these policies! (See : https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48685-where-americans-stand-on-20-transgender-policy-issues) Removing these videos invalidates that majority position, and risks pushing it ‘underground’, thus driving otherwise moderate individuals to extremist spaces if those become the only platforms that allow this broadly held viewpoint.
Another important consideration is that unscripted videos are a very powerful information tool. The same polls show that large segments of the population are undecided on these issues, and such videos can inform their views. For example, some viewers of the bathroom video may sympathize with the person filming, who wants to feel safe in a women’s bathroom. But others may side with the person being filmed, observing that they are polite, well-behaved, and simply minding their own business, posing no apparent risk.
Thus, I strongly believe that in every way, removing these videos hurts the public’s ability to have open political conversations, deepens the divide, and undermines our long cherished commitment to freedom of expression.
While gender dysphoria is a recognized mental health disorder, I strenuously oppose the growing notion that this entitles the person who suffers from it to be given rights and recognition that causes harm to other people.
Women, in particular, have been forced to shoulder the lion’s share of the burdens of this “Trans agenda“, through sacrificing their safe spaces in garment changing rooms, locker rooms, bathrooms, even battered women’s shelters and rape crisis spaces are no longer safe because of this. And of course the loss of hard won opportunities to compete in separate women’s sports are also at issue here, when any man who cannot win in his sport can simply declare himself to be a woman and take female hormones. There is a reason why men and women have historically been given separate opportunities to compete in the same sports.
I believe these serious issues deserve discussion in the public domain.
The video of the runner being booed by the crowd was a public event. As such, there's no reason to disallow it. The video of the trans person in the women's bathroom should also be allowed if the face of the person is blurred. While it's important in the ongoing debate about women's spaces, it's from a moment that people presume a level of privacy. If the face is blurred, though, there's no reason to disallow that video.
Canadian public policy has created confusion between sex and gender identity. Bill C-4 puts children who face trauma and neurodiversity at risk for surgery and sterilization. Bill C-16 has violated women’s sex-based Charter rights so Bill C-4 and Bill C-16 must be repealed.
Due to these ideologically driven laws safety has been lost in:
Washrooms; rape and domestic violence shelters; women’s sports; women’s prisons; and lesbian dating groups. The crimes of violent men are now being recorded as female crimes in Canada. Most women in prison are first nations and most of them (85%) have suffered domestic abuse. Those women are usually in jail for petty theft and drug abuse, not violent crimes, like those of the violent men they are forced to live with. Women cannot escape and have been raped by these men in prison.
The vast majority of youth with gender dysphoria are recognized as suffering from unresolved traumas, mental illness and/or neurodiversity. Ethical medical treatments restore normal development, health and function, and relieve suffering. I wrote an evidence based guideline, with my co-writers, for supporting dysphoric youth. I want to get this guideline into schools where it is badly needed.
I have written a guideline which shares fundamental principles in the context of child development and evidence based psychotherapeutic interventions for children and adolescents suffering from identity foreclosure.
Children mirror the behaviour of the adults they encounter, so it is everyone’s job to help the children around them.
Helpful suggestion to parents and teachers that can help kids make it through the troubled teen years:
Helpful
Affirms Adolescent for doing developmental tasks
Continue to offer love safety and protection
Accept all of adolescent feelings and talk about what it was like when you were a teenager
Confront unacceptable behaviour
Be clear about position on drug use and on sexual behaviours
Celebrate adolescent’s growing up and welcome adulthood
Urge youth to be true to themselves and find accommodations with socially acceptable behavior
Take community action to make schools and streets safe.
Intentions for the future:
Outlaw Puberty Blockers
Repeal Bill C-4
Defund Predatory Groups
Remove Porn from Libraries
Protect Women’s Spaces
Maintain Sex Categories in Sport
Defund Sex Change Surgery For Kids
Repeal Bill C-16 (and Bill C-4): which confuses sex and gender identity in law.
I work with Our Duty Canada, https://ourduty.group/canada/
It is every adults job to stop the social contagion of gender confusion. We ask all governing bodies: Do not mistake gender for sex in law or policy.
PLEASE HELP with my FB page … I had a Device logged March 12, 2024 at 12:45 PM in Near Abuja, Nigeria on Chrome on Windows. IT WAS NOT ME! My account was hacked. In turn, stated my Instagram account violated Meta’s Community Standards. Again it was not me.
My account has been suspended since. I have appealed following instructions given thru Instagram. I have business page attached to my FAITH HARTSOCK TOOLE page plus SO many memories of photos with my deceased Mom. PLEASE HELP!
The rights of women and girls are based on the category of sex. Women and girls in Afghanistan are discriminated against due to their sex. It is laughable to say they should identify as male and then they would be left alone by the Taliban. Gender Identities are a manmade invention from Queer Theories. These theories are overwhelmingly popular with White Elite Left Wing Westerners. The concept of 'gender identities' are based on regressive sex stereotypes with effeminate gay men and butch lesbians now being told they are the opposite sex. A man saying he 'feels' or 'thinks' he is a woman, remains a man. He is performing a sex stereotype of what he thinks women are. Its misogyny and offensive to women.
The Human Rights Act 1998 affirms 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 Forstarter versus CGD court decision. CGD has had to pay Forstarter compensation for sacking her for not believing in gender identity theories.
Equality legislation give women and girls the right 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). 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 CEDAW 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. We have seen young women traumatised by seeing male genitalia in the female changing rooms and being told they need to accept the situation or they are 'transphobic'. This is sexual abuse.
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 country 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.
In short, Women do not accept we are a feeling or a role play men can do. We are a sex class who exists totally separate from men. As the sex which is physically weaker and the sex which carries and births the young, we require protections from males when vulnerable or playing sports. The fact some of these males have psychological problems affecting how they feel about being male, is something other men need to facilitate. Its not women's job to look after confused men.
We cannot have a discussion around difficult issues if everything is deemed to be hate speech. I am an American. I felt that I had to leave the United States because it had become a place where having civil discourse was no longer allowed… is no longer allowed. Facebook is part of the reason for this.
In the UK and other European countries, there is a shift being made away from the gender-affirming model of trans healthcare (particularly for minors). Puberty blockers are no longer given because we do not know their effects, and some preliminary research suggests that they may do more harm than good. The Cass report is widely unknown in the US, especially to the layperson. According to Facebook’s policies, posting this even in an informative context can get someone banned.
Aside from dangers to children being downplayed or ignored, women are being silenced by Facebook’s policies. One recent example is the use of #XX. This was intended to show solidarity with the female athletes who are having their concerns about competing against biological males dismissed. This hashtag is banned on Facebook, calling it “hate speech.” Meanwhile #XY can be posted with impunity.
The problem is not this one hashtag though. Facebook has become one large echo chamber. Only the “approved” opinions can be discussed, everything else is labelled as “hate.” It is not hateful to want my niece, and my cousins, and my future daughter, to be able to say she feels uncomfortable having a biological male in her space without being labelled a bigot. The importance has become on giving platitudes to approved opinions and not on thorough and meaningful discussion. This is dangerous for women, for men, and for trans-identifying individuals. This is a perpetuation of the rape culture women have been fighting against. When ‘no’ no longer means ‘no’ the ability to consent is lost.
By creating an echo chamber, Facebook is also doing harm to the trans community. During the Imane Khelif controversy, I discovered that most of the people on my friend’s list could not speak accurately about the difference between a male with DSD and a male who “identified” as a transwoman. In Facebook’s effort to “protect” the trans community Facebook is removing our ability to talk about specific issues that impact each of these groups.
By removing people’s abilities to say anything that could be deemed as controversial or offensive, the topics related to trans-identifying people cannot be talked about and thus, are creating a wider divide. It leads people to seek out only those groups where their opinions are reflected back to them.
In the past few months, I have lost ten friends on Facebook for saying that women have the right to not want men in our bathrooms, even if those men believe themselves to be women. This is a protected belief and worthy of respect in a democratic society.
I encourage you, going forward, to loosen the reigns of free and direct discourse, not tighten them. If we are not able to have conversations, even those where feelings may be hurt, we will all make up our own minds anyway. It is better to have the information provided by alternative viewpoints to serve as a counterweight than to close down discussion because someone might get hurt feelings.
I do not think that social media companies should censor debate on current political issues. The key issue is whether or not changing gender identity also changes a person's biological sex, and so whether or not they are able to access single sex facilities. Some hate speech policies are framed so that only one position can be publically expressed. This is an interference with free speech and the political process. I think it is important that videos and photgraphs of transgender sports people are shared so that the physical difference can be seen - this is part of the debate on fairness. Exclusion can be justified - like weight categories, sex categories are intended to allow fair competition. Exclusion from womens bathroom and changing rooms is for safety and privacy. Speaking to people about this, many do not realise that most men who are transgender do not have any surgery and retain intact male genitalia, and that most are attracted to women. There is evidence in the UK that men who adopt feminine gender identity commit crimes, including sexual and violent crimes, at the male rate, not the much lower female rate. Many recent crimes of rape and femicide show that women are at real risk from men. These issues may be sensitive, but they do need to be discussed