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
This country was founded on free speech. The speech that was protected wasn't the speech that you agree with because who would need a law about that. It was obviously put in place to protect the freedom to speak in ways you don't agree with. This rabbit whole of banning people's freedoms to speak freely makes us no better than the bible thumping religious zealots who tried to force their views on the rebellious spirit in my day. Could you imagine if they had banned rock music or rap or any type of media that deemed offensive? Then we wouldn't have the beautiful and bright world of today. Deeming something hate speech just gives the powers to be the ability to label something and convince the general public that it's bad and then take away more and more freedoms. It's funny how the people will give up their rights so easily. And it's always presented as being for the greater good. If someone says something hateful I think it's best to learn how to deal with ruthless criticism or just let it go. Smh. Too much of our society has been ruined by big brother trying to police speech. All I hear is that it's for the greater good. Yet no one seems to remember the saying give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Are we so willing to give up our freedoms for a little safety? If you are then you don't deserve the freedom in the first place.
It is misogynistic and oppressive to consider women speaking out about males in our spaces as “hateful and bullying”. It is also ignorantly denying science and reality. If this goes forward Meta acknowledges that they are SILENCING WOMEN. Myself and my organization as well as many other women will boycott fb and ig as a result.
Correctly identifying someone’s sex is not “Hate Speech" ... it's biology. Let's teach our children reality and stop indoctrinated them so they can grow up to be intelligent human beings who can think critically.
Identifying someone by their sex is not hate speech.
Greetings,
I am informed that META will prohibit what it considers as "misgendering" on your platform. This would constitute compelled speech at the very worst and would be quite cumbersome for users to avoid using any pronouns at all when conversing about/with people on the platform. More importantly, such a policy does not respect the rights of people whose sincerely held belief prohibit them from participating in communicating in such a dishonest manner. What some may think is respectful (using preferred pronouns) others see as disrespectful towards women. If this policy would require women to refer to male sex offenders as women, how is that helpful? There are larger social concerns than whether a person's feelings are hurt by pronouns that reflect reality. This proposed policy will specifically inhibit free speech and debate surrounding policy decisions about sex-segregated spaces and categories in the United States of America. It is not a slur or hate speech to use honest language when talking about or to someone or when discussing these issues. META should not classify frank speech as hate speech. If someone is being hateful you will know it. It should not hinge on whether the person(s) referred to want to be referred to as male or female or something else.
Biology is not a belief, it is observable regardless of education.
Gender Ideology is a belief and a sexual self image. No one has to cater to anyone's sexual self image.
Gender Ideology claims age is a choice as well, and human life span disproves that. As do ordinary human senses when men claim to be women or women claim to be men. No one is nonbinary, and that creates a new binary of nonbinary believers and reality of a sexually reproducing species. Also: puberty is not pathology.
This is less about what men feel they are and more to do with who they are trying to feel up.
It is not up to men that they are not sexual harassers. Men claiming that all women are bisexual or he is a lesbian is a sexual harasser.
Men claiming to be women and being given treatment over women proves he is a man being catered to.
Women not being believed as men or as women, shows who the woman is.
So I doubt any comments by women will be considered in this review.
Men do not listen to women, and men back up whatever men do, and are given benefit of doubt and vigorous defense, while women are not given benefit of belief.
At the heart of this issue is the inherent conflict of interests between two marginalised groups: women & trans women. Banning statements based on the science of human biology would be self-evidently foolish. It isn't hateful to state reality.
correctly identifying someone’s sex is not “Hate Speech”
There are male bodies and female bodies and bodies with abnormalities that may include characteristics of both. That is a fact. The concepts of male and female gender identities are not grounded in fact. Like many others, I believe that the only thing that makes me female is my body. I do not believe that I have any character traits or feelings that are intrinsically female. I believe that defining "female" in any way other than "female body" is grounded in misogyny and furthers the oppression of women. Most people on both sides of this issue agree that sex-based characteristics are socially constructed as sex-based. Some of us believe that women are harmed when these socially constructed attributes are enshrined into law. It is not fair or just to allow anyone to identify as a woman while rejecting the speech rights of those of us who do not believe that a woman can have a male body. It does, in fact, limit me when you insist that I share attributes with male people simply because they say so.
Misgendering is not hate speech. A technology company should not be policing speech in any country, particularly when the products of that company are the modern town square.
Accurately sexing someone, particularly sex offenders against women and children, is an important part of the justice process. Someone's self identification is not more important than a woman's right to identify her reality.
Signed,
Krista Ellingson
Calling a man a man is telling the truth. The fact that he is wearing a dress doesn't change that. "Misgendering" is cult nonsense. The only people who benefit from obfuscating the facts are male predators and cheats who want access to women when they're naked or semi-naked or who want an easy win in women's race. People must be free to correctly sex other people and to use the pronouns appropriate to that sex.
Banning the discussion of objective sex is anti-woman and makes it impossible for women to discuss everything from their medical conditions, to their experiences with violence, to their physical needs. Gender is a social identity, not a biological state. The banning of discussing objective sex on Meta represents male interests over women's existence, and such a discriminatory and hateful policy is the exact opposite of inclusion.
Here’s a more polished and expanded version of your response:
---
If Meta is going to enforce policies that address gender misnaming, even when contrary to biological sex, it would be worth considering the inclusion of the colloquial phrase "you guys." This phrase, commonly used to address groups that include or consist entirely of women, fails to properly acknowledge women. Originating in informal speech as a term for groups of men, "guys" has become a gender-neutral way to address mixed or even all-female groups in casual settings. However, women are not "guys," and continued usage of this term can subtly reinforce the erasure of feminine identity in language. If we're aiming for inclusivity and accuracy, this common phrase should be scrutinized alongside other instances of gender misnaming.
In regards to considering “misgendering” bullying or harassment on a Meta platform, I would argue that banning instances of using pronouns which correspond to sex is absolutely critical to have legitimate and truthful conversations. It is also necessary for safety. The truth of the matter is that women and men cannot actually change sex, and as such many transwomen remain men and CAN still pose a danger as a male to females (and males). Therefore, is using sex-specific pronouns or references were not allowed, it would impossible to discuss real and valid concerns of women and girls. For instance, if it is impossible to discuss how this pertain who committed rape is actually a man, the text/audio would be very confusing and could ultimately lead to people thinking that a woman committed this crime, which is all but impossible. Another example would be if a transwoman (male) has committed a crime and is fleeing police, if they can ONLY be identified by their chosen pronouns/sex reference, the public could be put at real danger of not recognizing this person for who they are and potentially giving them shelter or not running from them when appropriate.
As we have seen, the downstream effects which were not considered when making policy decisions have led to violence against women by transwomen being placed in women’s prisons, or transwomen being placed in women’s dorms. The downstream effects of a ban of this type would also have serious consequences. No one comes to Facebook expecting that everyone will be civil to them all the time. Or you shouldn’t anyway. Someone demanding that the world always refer to them in a respectful way is in turn being disrespectful to the truth and to the needs of others to safety, truth, and integrity.
The thing that makes the United Staes great is our free speech. No other country in the world has this right, and it is the single most important factor in maintaining a robust democracy. We cannot debate ideas and establish a consensus if we cannot discuss them freely. Disagreement makes us stronger; silencing dissent never makes it go away but instead sends it underground where toxic ideas are wont to breed. For that reason alone, there should be no censorship on Facebook based on something so controversial and non-consensus as gender identity. By confining discussions of gender to a specific vocabulary, many people, and especially women, are unable to express their true opinions in all their complexity. By banning certain forms of expression, Facebook is siding with a specific, controversial world view when we should be able to trust Facebook to be as neutral as possible. These rules weaken our democracy, and I hope that Facebook will side with free expression and thought and make our United States stronger.
What other scientific facts about basic biology will Meta ban next? There is already so much concern among parents that social media is harmful to their children for many different reasons, but it's appalling to think that another reason is that our children will be forced to read lies upon lies about basic biology. We know that biological men can never become women. How a man chooses to dress is his business. What a man chooses to call himself is his business. But this is the United States of America, where we are supposed to have free speech. No actual violence is visited upon a man who is referred to as a woman. No actual violence is visited upon a man who is mocked for his appearance or beliefs. No. Around the world it is millions of biological women and girls who are murdered and raped and forcibly married off. And this violence is not visited upon these biological women and girls, because they identify as a certain gender. It is because of the basic biological fact that they are females. But to think that Meta would pamper the feelings of adult men who believe in the false religion of gender ideology over actual biological science shows that Meta has lost its footing. It will have zero relevance in the world when it forces users to speak Orwellian falsehoods.
Sex is reality based and immutable. Observing and identifying someone's correct sex is necessary for women's health and safety, online and offline. Men's feelings and preferences should never be allowed to compromise this. Coerced language is contributing to female erasure.
I object to so called mis-gendering being defined ad hate speech. I, like millions of other women & girls do not believe that people can change sex & speaking truth (biological facts) should not be framed as "hate speech". I don't believe in God either and gender ideology should be treated in.the same way.
It's an attack on freedom of speech & an insult to millions of (biological) females who have to deal with sexism, discrimination & misogyny on a daily basis. This is just another way of controlling our thoughts & speech.
The theory of Gender is just that- a theory. There are users that do not agree with these ideas and should not be forced to use language in disagreement with reality. Furthermore, creating a culture in which Women and Girls are told to not believe their own eyes sets a dangerous precedent. Platforms such as yours should be a place where opposing ideas should be allowed to exist, discourse is vital to a healthy society. Do not diminish actual hate speech by labeling biological fact as such.