Descrição do caso
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.
Comentários
Obscuring reality and preventing people from discussing this reality--meaning biological sex or sex as observed at birth--is a restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Restricting women from discussing female issues is regressive and protects no one, and may even do the opposite by disallowing women from sharing legitimate safety concerns with each other. Misgendering may be socially unacceptable and rude, but it is not a hate crime. For all the other misogyny and hate speech Meta allows, it would be ridiculous and inconsistent to make misgendering the hill on which Meta wants to die.
To Whom It May concern,
I am writing to strongly object to your proposed change in policy labeling ‘misgendering’ as hate speech. It is not hateful to state biological reality, regardless of someone’s stated ‘gender identity.’ In fact, it is a violation of free speech to label simply stating someone’s biological sex as hate speech and equates to being compelled to lie. It is not the place of any organization to police speech that is grounded in biological reality and is an infringement of my rights. As your founder recently stated, being compelled to suppress certain information was wrong. Similarly, this is also controversial and wrong. Thank you for reconsidering this position and preserving freedom of speech, even if some people disagree with it.
To identify men and women who are suffering from mental health issues that have encouraged them to deny their biological and thereby placing themselves and others at risk of harm is not misgendering nor is it hate speech.
It is a factual scientific statement that these people who are putting themselves through dangerous and unnecessary surgeries need help.
That they are encouraging children to walk this dangerous path is our major concern. Children are not old enough to vote, drink, drive or get a tattoo until they are an adult.
When this is brought up we get abused by these so called "women" called TERF, bigot etc. When we bring up as biological women how uncomfortable we feel about a biological male being in our safe spaces and groups we get called out for not being inclusive.
These people need to create their own groups and spaces for them. Just as lesbians created our own groups that do not include men.
I grew up hearing men say to me "I'm a lesbian to" so when I hear a man with long hair, lipstick, heels etc say the same derogatory statement of "I'm a lesbian to" I am disgusted that a man would fall so deeply in his mental health issue that he would force his way into a group or space to satisfy his feelings over the safety of women.
It is not hate speech to state biological reality.
Let's keep our freedom to call things what they are.
Meta's proposed policy to ban "misgendering" is a dangerous policy with wide-reaching consequences. It should be protected speech to discuss on Meta important issues affecting women's lives, including the issue of biological men entering women's sports competitions, women's need to sometimes have sex-segregated spaces that exclude men, and the issue of women's unique health needs and risks as distinct from people who were born biological men. These are important issues related to safety, fairness, and opportunities for women. To make a broad policy to ban "misgendering" does not allow women and men to have these conversations and is a very problematic form of censorship with far-reaching ramifications. While it may be challenging to police bullying and harassment on such a large platform, it is important to do so in such a way that women are not being silenced about issues affecting our lives. Women should have the right to acknowledge the biological reality of sex as a binary system, even if others take issue with it. Your new policy would oppress women and take away our voice. Certainly, you have an obligation to prohibit the personal bullying of individuals, but it is not necessary to prohibit honest and open discussions about gender ideology and its impacts on women and children. It is reasonable to have a policy in place that people cannot engage directly with a particular transgender individual in a way that intentionally harasses or bullies them, but we should be able to discuss the merits and problems of trans ideology. It is outrageous to require us to deny the reality of biological sex in our online discussions. The issues raised by trans ideology are far from settled science, as research in Europe has made clear with extensive, peer-reviewed research. This issue transcends the feelings of any one individual and needs to be discussed in the public marketplace of ideas. There is a difference between what is verifiably true and what is personal belief. People are allowed to have their personal beliefs but they are NOT allowed to force them on other people. Demanding that women refer to biological men as women in our Facebook discussions is forcing a belief on us. It doesn't matter that it is a widely held belief that a man can become a woman - it is still a belief, and just as many people do not share that belief. You are treading on dangerous territory. It is fascist to compel speech in the service of political correctness. Go back and reread Orwell's 1984! Facebook is going too far. It will have a chilling effect on the freedom to publicly express one's beliefs. Free speech is a bedrock value in our democracy and Meta should not be the arbiter of what speech is allowed to be freely expressed. Surely, Facebook can monitor for harassment and bullying without putting a muzzle on people wanting to discuss an important issue. As a social media forum based on building personal networks and having public discussions, you must allow a free exchange of ideas. It is vital. Please, reverse course on this dangerous policy. You can keep the platform safe without making it less safe for women! It's really is okay that sometimes in public discussions people get their feelings hurt. Facebook is not our mother and doesn't need to coddle people just because they have an uncomfortable feeling. There is a huge difference between someone feeling hurt and them being bullied. I believe you have the technology and personnel resources to distinguish between the two. I should be able to say that a man cannot become a woman, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. Facebook should defend my right, not try to dismantle it, and at the same time you can make sure people are not being bullied. The two are not mutually exclusive! You play an important role in getting diverse ideas out into the world. Don't censor which ideas should be allowed.
As sane people everywhere realize, you have to be brain-dead or psychotic not to comprehend there are TWO SEXES. Just because Meta is committed to persuading people that reality does not exist, most of us out here know very well that it does because we have to work, do chores, pay bills, all the things that people of a "certain class" like to avoid. Calling "misgendering" a crime is the height of absurdity. Many people have been misgendered; I've been called "sir," seen young men with long hair called "ma'am," and it is not a life-threatening experience. Only people with serious mental illness become offended if someone thinks they're not the sex they like to pretend they are.
So my suggestion to you is that you GROW UP, accept reality, and stop serving the ethno-state with your ridiculousness since I believe they are the ones pushing this grotesquerie.
Hate speech is when non females mansplain to women what a woman is. Bending language to support a lie, that men are women, is hate speech. Claiming that some men are women is sexual harassment and discrimination against women. Men are not women. This is the same as having Caucasians define who black people are. It is sexist and hateful.
There will be situations where someone's sex or gender is irrelevant, and to use someone's preferred pronouns does not mislead or take anything away from a post in terms of clarity of meaning for the reader. But this should not be obligatory for all post writers at all times, so long as the overall tone of a post is not gratuitously offensive. Sometimes it is important to state accurately somebody's sex rather than the gender they chose to be identified as. For example, when writing about women's sport (women's records being broken by those who have gone through male puberty; injuries to women caused by same; women's league tables becoming out of kilter because of teams fielding players who previously played as men/boys etc etc). Also re crime statistics (a few trans identifying male offenders captured within the data for female offending can affect future policy to the detriment of the needs of both female and trans offenders). Public health messages must be sex specific also - actual men need to know about prostate checks; actual women about cervix checks, without obfuscation). There are dangers in working on the basis that 'inclusion' only means including trans identifying males as women. Inclusion means including disabled - access to good facilities, visibility etc; ensuring women's right to single sex spaces is not obliterated by default - including the right of lesbians to meet together as same sex attracted women (ditto gay men); people of colour are not referred to as a sub-set of each sex in support of trans arguments for inclusion; older people are not written off; children's safety and welfare and age appropriate education and support ...
For all of the reasons set forth in excellent detail by the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), and because those reasons are grounded in reality and fact, I echo what WoLF submitted:
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/wolf-comment-to-meta-oversight-board-on-proposed-ban-on-misgendering
If you refuse to listen to women, I will drop my FB and IG accounts.
The voices of women's, LGB, and children's rights advocates must NOT be allowed to be silenced by the transgenderist political lobby.
It is correct to identify males as males, boys, and/or men.
It is a barefaced lie to identify males as females, girls, and/or women.
This is factual reality.
"Transphobia" is a nonsense term invented by the transgenderist political lobby to silence the voices of those who object to its wholesale destruction of women's, LGB, and children's rights.
The current Trans Moral Panic is being driven by a highly-funded political lobby seeking to destroy "sex" as a legal reality (although sex cannot be destroyed as actual reality). In destroying "sex" as a legal reality, the transgenderist political lobby seeks to destroy ALL sex-based rights, including women's rights and LGB sexual orientation rights.
Additionally, the current Trans Moral Panic is brainwashing innocent children into believing that they could somehow magically be "born in the wrong body," a shameless and traumatizing lie, promoted solely for the profit of the transgenderist lobby on behalf of the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
This lobby is cruelly and permanently destroying the bodies of tens of thousands of innocent children around the world.
Silencing those of us who are fighting this ongoing crime against humanity would only contribute to that crime.
Please Do not ban statements of fact regarding sex. This censorship has no place in the free market of ideas and will only serve to limit the speech of oppressed minorities.
Misgendering is not hate speech. It is not even inherently hateful. It is a matter of opinion which, we as humans have a right to have.
People have a right to believe what they believe about who they are or aren’t, but everyone around them also has the right to their OPINION on it. That does not constitute “Hate Speech” in any way.
In my 65 years, I've witnessed true progress for women in education, sports, homelife and society. Discarding the "gender roles" traditionally assigned to women and assuring equal opportunities made this possible. Now gender is again fixed. There are male and female roles but they ignore biology. The is regressive and degrades women. I accept that we all fall along the spectrum of sexual desire. We still are either genetically female or male. Saying this is not hateful, it is being transparent. I will talk about this and the injustice being done to women to anyone who will listen. I support those who speak out online about men in our bathrooms, in our locker room, winning medals in our competitions. This is not hateful. It is a reminder of how far we have come and our rally call to not go back.
I am concerned that Meta’s proposed Hate Speech, Bullying, and Harassment policy surrounding gender identity issues will ironically result in bullying and harassing women, and threaten their safety and freedom. It would effectively silence women's voices, which perversely echoes the Taliban's recent ban on the sound of women's voices in public. Silencing women is not progress.
The two videos that have been banned do not express hateful views, but rather well-researched, level-headed, viewpoints about scientific data that uphold the rights of women. Some people will disagree with the viewpoints expressed. But that does not make them hateful. Please don't censor women.
Please reconsider.
Women are adult human females. No biological male can ever be a woman. It’s not a social construct or an ideology. It’s a fact. To tell women they need to submit to a man’s feelings because he “feels” like a woman. In itself is misogynistic, and shows that real women are to be quiet just so that men are comfortable. No one on this planet has the right to not be offended. There’s no such thing. So yes, women all around the world need to be calling out these hateful men who have nothing better to do than to bully real women, and then try to silence us.
Correctly identifying someone's sex isn't hate. It's just reality. Please note how people who pander to the gender crowd get eaten alive the second they step out of line. Capitulating to them in any way is blood in the water, you will never be able to do anything right, and this will end up being a huge headache for moderation.
Since within the gender doctrine gender can be fluid, one may ID as male one day, female the next, and fae the following. Okay, what's the rule on misgendering in such a context? And that's one of many examples.
Don't become the disaster that is Tumblr. Live in reality. Just as Zuckerberg defends a hands off policy when it comes to certain political matters, doing the same for gender allows people to actually practice freedom of speech and association. The tide is turning, people are irritated with gender being inflicted onto anything. People need info from all directions to form full opinions as well, and if you see open comment sections that aren't shut down, the majority of people are 'live and let live, but you can't compel me to practice your gender faith."
I'm a life long liberal, for the record. Lefty as hell. Unions. Education. Reproductive freedom. And yes, freedom of speech and assembly. Let's defeat authoritarianism from all directions by not caving to a group of bullies hiding behind screen names. And also keep your moderation queues free of people using gender ideology as a means to coerce and oppress others.
- Amy
Men cannot become women, nor vice versa, and so the notion of misgendering is nonsensical. Whilst it may be hurtful for someone who believes themselves to be the opposite sex to be addressed as the actual sex they are, this cannot be regarded as hate speech or taken very seriously. If someone told me I was ugly should that be a hate crime for which they are punished by banning from social media? Or if they tell I’m stupid? Or if they call me a stupid white woman or a stupid Jewish woman, thereby bringing in my immutable characteristics? Obviously this would all be unpleasant and hurtful but for a platform to ban everyone who gets into a temper and says hurtful thing is an absurd proposition. And banning people from speaking the unequivocal truth is a terrifying proposition.
Identification should be objective. Coddling science/biology deniers is ludicrous, and is insensitive to the rest of the people in the world that aren't subjectively confused. It certainly is NOT hate speech to try to correct ignorance or errors that are blatantly obvious. Enforcing gender confusion/subjectivity will only lead to greater confusion and harm (yes, "gender affirming" surgery and procedures seldom lead to positive outcomes ... you know this, right?). "Oh, but 'so many' people are confused, or want others to affirm their subjective identity (even if it hurts themselves), or demand that we make these arbitrary, subjective, unscientific rules because they 'say so' or they might be offended ... so, we should turn off our brains and want that too." No, stop being insensitive and offending the rest of the people on this planet, and use objective, scientific criteria to identify a person's sex as specified by their DNA.
This is further proof that a select panel of individuals will determine what free speech is. If I choose to call a man in a wig a man, I can be prosecuted? For my factual opinion? This is an assault on common sense and science. It’s also a blatant attempt to cancel women. We’re going back to the dark ages, if women have zero rights and we cannot even have private spaces. If social media wants to place “thought control” on citizens, we’re done with it. People are leaving the Dem party over this nonsense, it’s gone way too far.
'Misgendering' is a loaded term. It borrows -- steals -- the force of words like 'mistake' and 'misnomer', which imply an error. Another word is 'mistreatment', which implies that a wrong has been done to someone. It is by no means certain that it is either erroneous or abusive to use names or pronouns which accurately reflect the sex of a trans-identifying person. A person's sex is a fact and Meta should deal in facts, respecting their status as fundamental to genuine debate. Facts are not hate speech. To censor facts is totalitarian.