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
Using scientific and biological speech is not hateful. Male, female, man, woman, boy, girl are truthful terms that describe one’s human biology. Cis and trans are words that have been made up to describe a person’s identity. They are not biological truth. So to censor someone for speaking the truth (calling a man a man) is make them lie if they want to use meta or silence them.
Meta should continue to allow videos like the two referenced in this case.
Socalled misgendering can never be hate speech as there are no such thing as misgendering as there is no such thing as sex change. There are men and there are women. Men in wigs, dresses and fake pronouns shall not be allowed to be a threat to women's autonomy of their own sex. The very idea that men can become women by self ID is a taunt towards women. Pointing out, that a man is a man, no matter how he 'identifies'.
Sex matters, biology isn’t bigotry and truth isn’t hate speech.
I accept people that are trans have rights but I don’t want a male to female trans in a toilet, changing room or female sports. It’s not hate speech or bullying to point out that someone born male has distinct advantages over someone born female. Also, gender identity can be just a man saying he identifies as a woman. I have a problem with that. … I have no problem with a man who has already gone through the surgical removal of their genitalia to become female being in a toilet or changing room with me. They would still have an advantage in sports though. It’s not hate speech or bullying it’s facts and if Meta decides to allow facts to be classed as bullying or hate speech then God help us all.
Don’t do this Meta
Women are female - meaning sex, not gender ID - and our legal rights to safe protected spaces, sports, and free speech as a sex are being threatened by the media conflation of sex and gender; to be perfectly clear: Sex is not gender. Gender roles and social expectations of the sexes are regressive STEREOTYPES. “Woman” and “girl” are not feelings or fantasies in men’s minds. Women must be able to speak without censorship in all media about their own female rights and safety - from men! Men who claim to be women and deny their sex must not be prioritized over women! THIS is precisely male privilege and aggression on female boundaries. Please respect and uphold the rights of the female sex.
There are only TWO sexes MALE XY Chromosome and FEMALE XX Chromosome. There is no such thing as transwomen or transmen you can’t change your sex so you can’t misgender anything.
The men pretending to be women so they can compete in sports are cheats. Again, you cannot change your biological sex no matter how many hormones you take you will still be either male or female
Woman and Man.
It has been proven that attacks on Transpeople are exaggerated. There are actual documents, disproving the attacks and harassment they receive if anything there is more evidence of transwomen attacking actual women and assaulting them sexually as well. This has been well recorded. It has also been proven that they are more likely behind doxxing Information of women to intimidate them or hurt her.
As example they threaten to J. K. Rowling as they stood outside her house to put a pipe bomb in her mailbox.
I and 99.9 % of the population can identify the sex of a person almost immediately.
This act will only hurt women in the end because men will take advantage of it and have done so repeatedly sexual reality is fact, gender ideology is just that ideology and a dangerous one that.
I am a real woman and I find it highly offensive that you are supporting people with a fetish and allowing them to get away with harassment, cheating, online assaults, and in real life assaults as well. I do not support this ban because there is no such thing as misgendering.
A man is a man No matter how much makeup or dresses or wigs, he wears and that’s fact.
The issue of flagging speech identifying transgender men in female spaces as “hate speech” raises critical concerns regarding both freedom of speech and the biological realities that underpin sex-segregated spaces. In this appeal, we emphasize the need for Meta’s policy to remain neutral and grounded in factual, sex-based distinctions.
1. Freedom of Speech: At its core, free expression allows individuals to engage in discussions about societal structures, including the importance of single-sex spaces. Flagging these discussions as “hate speech” risks silencing legitimate debate and stifles the voices of women who rely on these spaces for safety, privacy, and fairness. Labeling accurate descriptions of sex as "hateful" could create a chilling effect on open dialogue.
2. Biological Realities and Single-Sex Spaces: There is a well-established need for spaces reserved for biological females, particularly in areas like healthcare, domestic violence shelters, and prisons. These spaces exist to protect vulnerable groups based on physical differences and societal dynamics, and they do not exclude based on identity, but rather on sex-based biological differences. Identifying the presence of a transgender man in these spaces is not an act of hatred but a matter of safeguarding the intended function of sex-segregated areas.
3. Neutrality in Policy: Meta should adopt a neutral stance that respects the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. This neutrality should allow individuals to discuss and maintain sex-based boundaries in a respectful manner. Acknowledging biological differences does not inherently constitute hate speech, and policies should reflect this distinction to prevent censorship of valid, fact-based concerns regarding the integrity of single-sex spaces.
SmCompelling speech and censorship is skirting dangerously close to nazism. Correctly identifying someone’s sex is NOT misgendering them, they are misgendering themselves (as is their right to do). Pointing this out is not hateful, it is simply fact and an instinct born in most humans to keep ourselves safe. Having someone who is misgendering themselves in the opposite sex’s spaces is not safe for either sex. Pointing it out is essential for our continued safety. Stop this hateful-towards-women nonsense NOW. AND BY WOMEN I MEAN ADULT HUMAN FEMALES.
Sex is objective and immutable, while gender is socially constructed and is harmful and oppressive to women and girls.
You can not even begin to police what people believe. This would be a very slippery slope. Freedom of speech should uphold and the freedom to believe what one wants to believe should not be put at risk.
META is complicit in the sexual mutilation and sterilization of tens or hundreds of thousands of minors and young people.
By promoting and spreading the false religious cult beliefs of genderism, META is complicit in crimes against humanity.
All humans on earth including ALL META EMPLOYEES know that the categories of humans are just male and female. To PRETEND otherwise, which is what META is continuing to do, in service to global elites and their agenda to sow chaos and destroy civilization, is evil.
META must cease and desist from censoring, compelling and controlling our speech.
I urge the board to protect free speech rights, allowing open discussion on gender identity without penalties for "misgendering." No one should be forced to use language that conflicts with their beliefs or understanding of biological reality.
This absurd policy is particularly oppressive to women as it prohibits discussion about our sex-specific lived experiences. Women are not a feeling. We are losing our legal protections. Stop this erasure of our freedoms and rights.
It is not hate speech to use pronouns. He, she, his or hers are not worse than contain hate or love.
I recognize only biological sex.
As a Lesbian for over 30 years I have been fighting for Lesbiannsnd women only spaces as Gathering places for is socially, politically, sexually and spiritually. Lesbians NEED Lesbian and Female only spaces to connect without male encroachment, pressure or sexual intimidation, and for our greatest freedom and ability to.just be. Even amongst Gay men we have had to deal with Gay male sexism and being treated as " less than" and our needs or wants dismissed.
Heterosexual and bisexual women need women only spaces too to feel physically and psychically safe without male sexual pressure to be, hear their OWN voices without male interference or judgement or threatening or intimidating behaviors if they disapprove or being treated as " less than".
For ALL women we need access to locker rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards and staff, homeless and domestic violence shelters and prisons without male presence to be sexually, physically, and emotionally safe from males who could intimidate, impregnate or sexually violate them.
Trans " women" ARE males. Many still retain penises. They do not belong in Female only environments for all the reasons stated above.
If they do not want to use male facilities, wards, prison areas, bathrooms, lockers roo.s should be separately be provided for them whether it be the single person Family/ Disabled/ Sex neutral locked bathroom seen in many facilities along with Female and male bathrooms or other facilities. Females should NOT have to give up their sexually vulnerable intimate spaces or housing for vulnerable same sex populations to ANY male, no matter how
they identify. European Statistics have shown that trans biological males are as prone to violent and sexual crimes AS ANY OTHER MALE..with often a greater penchant for sexual crimes. 80 % of violent crimes are committed by males and over 95% of sexual crimes. The Female population MUST BE PROTECTED no matter HOW these males identify or dress. It changes NOTHING about them.
- Sincerely,
- Diana Goldman
It is NOT "hate" speech to correctly identify a person's sex.
It is NOT "hate" to believe in biological reality, nor that it supercedes some people's feelings.
It is NOT "hate" to speak the truth regarding biological reality and scientific fact that has been self-evident for millennia.
It is NOT "hate" to believe there are only two sexes.
It is NOT "hate" to understand that intersex conditions are based on either one or the other sex, there is no in-between sex, and there are only 2 sex gametes in humans (and all mammals)
It is NOT "hate" to identify said intersex conditions when they apply to males who have been through male puberty.
It is NOT "hate" to want to keep sex-based rights for women and girls.
It is NOT "hate" to want to keep intact males out of women's spaces, however said males choose to identify.
It is NOT "hate" for women to want to be able to gather without male bodies present.
The current trend is destroying the rights of women and girls to have things for themselves - including their own words - girl, woman, female - if we can't identify ourselves then we can't protect ourselves.
Trans people can live their lives - they already have their "human rights" to do so - but they do NOT have the right to forcibly coerce others to share their opinions, nor to force them to be silent when they disagree. And they do NOT have the right to force their presence into every single space that should be sex-based ONLY.
Stating a person’s sex is not hate speech but factual biological reality. Even very young children can differentiate between male and female individuals - we are genetically wired to be able to do this. I will stop using all meta platforms if this propositions wins legal power.
Calling a person by their birth sex is correctly identifying them, this is not rude.
Free speech is vital
Dear Meta
I am concerned about your proposal to ban what you call "misgendering" as hate speech.
What "misgendering" usually means in practice is that someone refers to a person's biological sex rather than their self-identified gender (which might be different). But a person's sex is a matter of scientific fact, which is not changed by whatever gender they choose to identify as. So to ban misgendering would be to ban the right to make a scientifically accurate statement about that person.
Advocates for the gender identity movement have encouraged the view that it is hate speech not to speak and act at all times as though a person’s claimed gender identity was their real sex. Women have been fired from their jobs, threatened with and faced real-world violence, and in Europe even faced legal consequences — all for calling a man a man.
In one of the most egregious examples of women’s free speech being violated, victims of rape have been forced to call their male rapist “she” in court.
The Oversight Board claims to prioritize supporting the freedom of expression of women as a strategic priority. If Meta were to ban stating a person’s sex as “hate speech”, women would no longer be able to meaningfully engage in public discussion about feminism, patriarchy, their rights, or male violence on Meta’s platforms.