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
Sex is a physical reality, and it is never hate to acknowledge or state a physical reality. One should be allowed to properly note names, locations, weights and dates, and sex is no different.
Every plant and animal species has two biological sexes, male or female, whatever additional claims or theories some may have about social "gender" or personal "identity."
These two cases are silly, on par with religious zealots asserting blasphemy.
I think all gender identity discussion should be allowed. I don't think we should censor important topics because someone's feelings are hurt by the news/facts. Gender identity has always been a huge debate topic and there are some very questionable things about endorsing a toxic social construct.. gender and sex are not the same things obviously but gender is very often brought into issues about birth sex.. Anyway please don't censor us because girls/women are actively being harmed by some of the gender rhetoric.
I would really appreciate debate.
I have concerns about lesbian and women’s rights that are labelled as transphobic.
I think biology needs to be included in the debate.
Women must be able to freely discuss issues about sex based protections in law. Women and girls must not be gaslit, censored, bullied and threatened for stating sex based protections matter.
As a woman born woman I have to say that MEN CANNOT BECOME WOMEN AND WOMEN CANNOT BECOME MEN . PUBERTY IS NATURAL & THE T MOVEMENT NEEDS TO LEAVE LESBIANS ALONE ! NO MORE TRANS WOMEN IN WOMEN SPACES !! TRANSWOMEN ARE MEN !!
I'm disappointed in the authoritarian way Facebook/Meta has handled the issues of erasure of women's right to privacy, dignity and safeguarding away from men in the US and globally - by censoring the discussion of women's rights.
I used to work at Facebook as a software engineer, and this isn't the same company I was once adored and was so proud to be able to be a part of. I completely lost trust in Facebook and now make it a point not to use Facebook anymore, because of its STRONG anti-woman bias. My account has been threatened with suspension (by an AI bot, with no "appeal to a human" process, mind you, which feels.. extremely dehumanizing, I felt violated, especially that it came at a time that I was planning to build my business on facebook and was considering spending money on advertising). My account had a "you'd better censor yourself OR ELSE" warning for 2 years and has been shadowbanned for the "crime" of me talking about the erasure of women's rights. The effect? I now use facebook hesitantly, only when absolutely necessary for group communication, and my children and spouse are off facebook completely. And I will NOT consider joining the Facebook workforce again in the future, nor will I spend even a dollar more on advertising my business with you - that train has left. Your loss, I guess. I don't care.
You have a chance to make it right to the next generation of women (after you let my generation down), or fade away into obscurity as the censorious hand of the US government, complicit in pushing women's rights back by 50 years and erasure of Title IX. All while the tide turns globally & women's rights become acknowledged again, along with the dangers of gender identity that we discover with each & every lawsuit against the gender preachers that we win in courts of law.
Censuring comments that are critical of trans identities is an infringement of people's right to free expression of belief. Suspending accounts that are critical of transgender beliefs is coercing people to not question transgender beliefs. It is placing transgender beliefs above all other beliefs in an attempt to make it the global belief. Such an attempt is authoritarian. To say men cannot be women should be treated in the same way as saying there are no gods, that is with no censure at all.
Gender ideology and queer theory activists have used social media platforms to push a debated ideological concept onto vulnerable children and young people.
By attempting to silence anyone who does not 'believe' their versions of reality they are continuing to endanger confused youngsters who never get to see there are alternate viewpoints and to deny other people who do not endorse their delusions the right to express their truth (rooted in biological science rather than a person's feelings).
What someone pretends is up to them What I pretend is up to me. I will not be coercively controlled by anyone to lie for predatory perverts trying to ensnare others through their lies. Women must be able to name themselves "women" while using the same word to exclude ALL MEN. Shamgender, so called "transgender" is a perverts' demands movement which must recruit for their cult, as they sterilize themselves and others as they join. We must be able to state facts such as "No one can change sex, so "trans" is a lie." We must also be free to reject propaganda, lies and others' prostelytizing for their castration/death/mutilation cults.
I believe in, and support free speech - even speech I don't agree with - and that is the sign of a free society. The best way to fight bad ideas is not to silence them, but to present better ideas. I also do not believe that one ideology should be cancelled while another ideology is considered the official, state sanctioned ideology. Unfortunately, Meta has chosen to represent trans ideology as somehow sacrosanct and above criticism, while demonizing legitimate criticism as "far right" or "transphobic", and Meta actively works to silence heterodox voices. This level of censorship is totalitarian and is a hallmark of a dictatorship, not a free and democratic society that we in the West value. Given Meta's global influence, it is reprehensible that they amplify the people who are anti-science, in that they believe people can change sex, and anti-women, in that they believe men have a right to women's spaces. Meta should be pro science and pro women. I am so grateful that X has chosen to go the route of protecting free speech, and I hope some day that Meta will also move away from tyrannical censorship of ideas, to promoting free speech.
People who identify as the sex which they are not, or identify as trans gender or non-binary, have the same protection against discrimination as everyone else. It is inappropriate for them to expect more protection or more rights than other people such as being able to claim positions or go places that are intended for the other sex from what they are.
The pressure to identify as the other or no sex is a shaming technique because it suggests you are not o.k. feeling like the other or not performing sex-stereotypes and feeling like you have no sex. It is more affirming to resolve yourself to the fact that you are a sex, from before birth, and you cannot change that. You can be How you want but you can't be What you want. It would be less shaming if people were encouraged to be how they want and not ashamed of what they are.
We need,obviously, to be able to talk about this in public so as to resist the shaming that is going on under the guise of affirmation.
I have grave concerns on the feelings of having what will eventually amount to a bag on reporting any story that can be perceived to be negative towards any community.
If you look at the way the trans issue has been reported over time, a few years ago even discussing the idea of trans people detransitioing was deemed to be offensive (and allegedly just reporting that this existed was damaging to the mental health of the trans community). Thankfully, with the Cass report, there's been a bit more openness about discussing this but I would be concerned that if Facebook adopts a view that prevents/actively demotes the mere discussion of what amounts to just "bad press", it removes what makes Facebook an open forum to discuss and share.
This does not only apply to trans issue obviously. Any religious group or minority should be able to have their beliefs discussed (and bad press reported) as long as it remains factual and opinion is allowed.
Gender identity is a highly contested area and there has been more and more exposure of the lack of scientific evidence supporting it (see the WPATH files leaks, the lauded CASS Review, the leaks by other whistle blowers and the damage to young people set out in various studies as well as the increasing numbers of stories from detransitioners). It is imperative that people are informed about the harms caused by this ideology and so posts discussing or showing these harms and/or experiences of these harms should absolutely be allowed - these, of course, should be evidence based. People who believe they are trans should be treated with respect but stating factual truths is not disrespectful - in fact lying to such people about their sex could be considered to be disrespectful as it involves treating them in such a way that assumes or asserts that they cannot handle the truth. With more and more countries beginning to question gender identity and its origins, social media must ensure that such questioning is not hidden or taken down. Free speech depends on allowing such questioning.
The only part that concerns me is the medicalization issue. Transgender people have as many rights as any other individual, and that should never be curtailed. They have a right to live their life in any way they deem fit, and they should not face any harassment, online or off. (By the same token, they do not have to right to harass anyone else.) However, the rights do not include the right to medicalize - and if the evidence shows that the evidence is lacking, as multiple reviews by countries like Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, and others have found, that information should be presented. And if any individual or organization claims that the "science is settled," such claims should be presented as dubious. The other issue is the rights of women and their spaces. Natal women have, on average, much less strength than natal men, regardless of how they identify, and the facts around that reality should be presented as such.
Civil debate about transgender issues 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. The debate cuts across political lines and is of enormous interest all over the world. The near-total silence (until very recently) on transgender issues in the MSM has been incredibly harmful, and I hope Meta will not collude in keeping that silence going.
Women should not be compelled on social media to describe male transgender identified people as women. Women have legal rights to single sex spaces and sports that are currently under political attack, and women need to be able to describe how and why policy changes in this area affect them. Transgender women are not welcome in female only spaces and sports because they are male (their transgender status is irrelevant) and are therefore capable of bringing in the exact type of male behaviour that female only spaces were set up to avoid. By restricting women's ability to discuss transgender identified male's maleness, Meta has been interfering with political speech in breach of Article 10 human rights. It is also engaging in indirect sex discrimination, direct belief discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination by making it impossible for women (often gender critical lesbians) to politically organise in defence of their rights to single sex female only and lesbian only spaces. Manifestation of gender critical beliefs are protected under The Equality Act 2010. You are not complying with the law.
It is ridiculous for Facebook to ban posts or discussions which are conducted from a sex-realist and/ or gender critical perspective, when only a very small minority of people are currently proponents of sex denialism and gender identity belief. In the UK having gender critical beliefs is protected under the Equality Act and it is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of those beliefs.
In addition the vast majority of people have realised that there is a genuine tension between the rights of people to believe whatever they want about their gender identity and those who recognise sex as a real category that sometimes matters and should not be overridden by gender identity.
Those people should be free to discuss how we can balance the rights of both groups. If you ban the overwhelmingly larger group from talking about their beliefs, you don't make them believe what you want them to, you just make them resentful and less reasonable when they eventually do get to voice their beliefs. It also makes them less supportive of the group they perceive to have been previously untouchable and less tolerant of their demands.
Basically you need to accept that most people simply do not agree that a man who says he is a woman is a woman; they do not believe that gender identity is a more important category than biological sex and they are not bigots or fascists or right wing for not believing this. Just as people who do not believe in transubstantiation are not anti-catholic bigots who hate catholics, people who do not believe that human apes are born with gendered souls do not hate people who identify as trans. Behaving as if they are makes you, not them, the extremists.
In the cases outlined the right decision was made. It is impossible to change biological sex, regardless of the medical interventions of hormones and surgeries. It is well known that men are a danger to women. Right from being old enough to understand 'stranger danger' children know it is men they should beware of. That risk doesn't change regardless of any gender identity. This being the case, it's important that people have the right to speak about their rational fears of harm and their need for safe spaces and safe sports for women and girls.
Trans people naturally also have their right to speak on the subject. It's an important discussion and their voices should be heard. Regrettably on social media the 'right to speak' all too often resolves itself into rape and death threats against women - and those should be removed as they are genuine hatred of a protected group.
Of course, hate speech must always be dealt with regardless of the target. Should such threats be aimed at trans people I would expect them to be removed also. However, simply using the correct pronouns for a biological male or female, or pointing out the advantages of male puberty in sporting contests against women and girls is not hate. It's scientific fact.
Thank you for undertaking this study. I hope rationality and fairness will be maintained.
Gender identity is akin to a religious belief. Not everyone subscribes to a religious or philosophical belief and if they do, they may subscribe to an ideology that is not gender identity. Just like religious beliefs, these should be debated and just like religious beliefs they are subjective, mutable and not an immutable physical characteristic. Gender identity is an ideology that is in direct conflict with biological science of sex and as such there will be debate between these two fields of thought. Gender identity is also in direct conflict with women's rights to single sex spaces a political movement which is worthy of debate in public squares both offline and online. Social media spaces shouldn't penalise people who don't believe in gender identities, or people who are campaigning for single sex spaces or people using terms referencing biological sex, such as man, woman, girl and boy.