META OVERSIGHT BOARD ALLOWS ANTI-TRANS HATE FROM OTHERS, BUT TELLS META TO REMOVE ITS OWN

Oversight Board’s decision rules that two anti-trans posts are allowed, but tells Meta to remove anti-trans language from updated hate speech policy

“As Meta continues to adopt right-wing postures that foment hate and bigotry against historically marginalized groups, the company should expect that many users, creators, and advertisers will find other places to spend their money, time, and attention.”

April 24, 2025 — GLAAD, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, today responded to a new decision announced by the Oversight Board, the body that makes pseudo-independent rulings about Facebook, Instagram, and Threads content moderation cases.

GLAAD’s analysis of the ruling found a clear disagreement among the Oversight Board on the cases — the issued decision permits two posts containing anti-trans content, while notifying Meta that it must also remove anti-trans rhetoric it added to its hate speech policy in January (extensive background is below, including more details on the right-wing, anti-trans term “transgenderism”). On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that top Meta executives told the Oversight Board that the ruling should be “treated carefully” … “given the fraught political debate” about the rights of trans people in the United States.

The Board ruled that the two harassing posts, one intentionally misgendering a transgender woman and the other intentionally misgendering a transgender girl, should remain (one on Facebook, the other on Instagram). They were both reshared by a prominent anti-LGBTQ account, inviting more visibility and harassment. The ruling expressly notes that the posts “misgender identifiable trans people,” yet asserts that the posts do not “represent bullying and harassment,” instead characterizing them as “public debate.”

Although the majority of the Oversight Board supported Meta’s decision to allow the content, a minority expressly noted (in concurrence with GLAAD’s public comment submitted for the Board’s consideration) that the posts violate Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy. The policy prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people, stating: “all private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures are protected from… claims about… gender identity.” Additional background is below, including the company’s caveats about who is protected by the policy and who is not.

“With this ruling, the Oversight Board is both telling Meta to stop its own anti-trans hate, saying the company must remove this dehumanizing rhetoric from its policy, while also giving terrible validation to Meta’s new harmful approach to content moderation. Meta is moving its products away from longtime industry standard best practices and deeper into toxicity that harms users,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “All of Meta’s customers, creators, and advertisers should demand the company create safe products and not allow blatant harassment.”

Acknowledging Meta’s use of an anti-trans trope in its January 7, 2025 policy changes, and urging the company to remove it, the Oversight Board states: “Finally, the Board is concerned that Meta has incorporated the term ‘transgenderism’ into its revised Hateful Conduct policy. To ensure Meta’s content policies are framed neutrally and in line with international human rights standards, Meta should remove the term “transgenderism” from the Hateful Conduct policy and corresponding implementation guidance.” (“Transgenderism” is a popular right-wing anti-trans trope intended to falsely imply that being trans is an ideology.)

“This tells LGBTQ people all we need to know about Meta’s attitude towards its LGBTQ users — anti-LGBTQ hate, and especially anti-trans hate is welcome on Meta’s platforms,” Ellis continued. “This is not ‘free speech,’ this is harassment that dehumanizes a vulnerable group of people. LGBTQ people’s humanity is not a matter of ‘public debate.’ For the safety of all of its users, Meta should stop its unpopular new anti-LGBTQ policies that endanger LGBTQ people. As Meta continues to adopt right-wing postures that foment hate and bigotry against historically marginalized communities, the company should expect that many users, creators, and advertisers will find other places to spend their money, time, and attention.”

Background:

In September 2024, GLAAD submitted an official public comment regarding the two cases (“Gender Identity Debate Videos“), which address anti-transgender hate and harassment content. The Board’s ruling acknowledges Meta’s recent sweeping changes to its Hateful Conduct policy, including the removal of many policy protections for transgender people. Among the many rollbacks, the company said it will now allow calls “for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights” (e.g. “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism [sic] and homosexuality [sic]”). GLAAD has spoken out extensively about how this policy language is dehumanizing hate speech in itself which is attempting to normalize anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

According to the Oversight Board, the first Facebook video shows a cisgender woman confronting a transgender woman for using the women’s bathroom, intentionally misgendering the trans woman as “a man” and asking “why it is permitted for them to use a women’s bathroom.” In the second case, an Instagram account posted a video of a trans girl winning a female sports competition. The account intentionally misgenders her, referring to the athlete as a “boy” and also, according to the Oversight Board, “questions whether they are female.” In the proactive denying of their gender identities and accompanying public provocation, both pieces of content invite viewers to partake in the harassment. The Oversight Board states: “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.”

While Meta rolled back LGBTQ protection aspects of its Hateful Conduct policy in January, the company’s policy continues to state that it prohibits hate and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Even in Meta’s own logic, and as a minority of the Oversight Board expressly agree, the posts clearly violate Meta’s policy which still prohibits targeted misgendering of transgender people (i.e. “claims about gender identity”).

Lastly, while Meta’s updated Hateful Conduct policy still prohibits hate and harassment of people on the basis of protected characteristics including gender identity, the company has stated that it will now primarily rely on user reports to identify “less severe policy violations.”

More On Meta’s Policy Against Targeted Misgendering:

While there are many interesting and complex aspects to the case, this primary aspect above (Meta’s existing policy protecting people from “claims about … gender identity”) should have made the Oversight Board’s adjudication straightforward. Arcane facets of Meta’s policy enforcement considerations created disagreement amongst the Board: including the question of whether the targeted subjects must self-report the accounts who target them, and whether the subjects should be considered public figures. (The policy only protects: “private minors, private adults (who must self-report), and minor involuntary public figures.”) GLAAD has long advocated for the removal of these distinctions and requirements — everyone should be protected.

Both posts are intentionally misgendering the targeted subjects and denying their gender identities. In post #1, the account maliciously asserts that the transgender woman is a “man,” and post #2 maliciously claims the trans girl athlete is a “boy.” These are instances of intentionally bullying and harassing trans people by misgendering them, not accidentally getting someone’s pronouns wrong. These are not merely expressions of harmless “opinions,” nor are they positions without animus in a “debate.” These are deliberate expressions of contempt and bigotry against transgender people. The content both promotes the harassment of the subjects and trans people overall.

Citing research on the harms associated with targeted misgendering and deadnaming online, as well as the 2024 Social Media Safety Index (SMSI) report, GLAAD’s September 2024 public comment notes that:

“Targeted misgendering is a (creative) form of hate speech. With malicious intent, it seeks to mock, denigrate, and dehumanize transgender, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming people in violation of Meta’s Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment policies. It should be mitigated in accordance with all of Meta’s applicable policies and sub-policies.”

Read GLAAD’s full public comment here.

As highlighted in GLAAD’s 2024 SMSI report, Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, and Threads are largely failing to mitigate anti-LGBTQ hate and harassment. Meta’s enforcement failures have elicited longtime concern from the Oversight Board, trust and safety experts, human rights advocates, and even Meta’s shareholders.

Research on the impacts of Meta’s policies on freedom of expression and the rights of transgender people:

• Before the January 2025 changes, Meta previously acknowledged in its Community Standards that online hate “​​creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.”
• A 2024 GLAAD report found that Meta is failing to moderate extreme anti-trans hate across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

Additional Background: Major Social Media Platforms Fail on LGBTQ Safety

The fourth annual GLAAD Social Media Safety Index & Platform Scorecard was released in June 2024. After reviewing six major platforms on 12 LGBTQ-specific indicators, all received low and failing scores:

• TikTok: 67%
• Instagram: 58%
• Facebook: 58%
• YouTube: 58%
• Threads: 51%
• X: 41%

Key findings of the 2024 SMSI include:

• Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric on social media translates to real-world offline harms.
• Anti-LGBTQ hate speech and disinformation continues to be an alarming public health and safety issue.
• Platforms are largely failing to mitigate this dangerous hate and disinformation and inadequately enforce their own policies.
• Platforms disproportionately suppress LGBTQ content, including via removal, demonetization, and shadowbanning.
• There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from the platforms.

About the GLAAD Social Media Safety program:
As the leading national LGBTQ media advocacy organization, GLAAD is working every day to hold tech companies and social media platforms accountable and to secure safe online spaces for LGBTQ people. The GLAAD Social Media Safety Program produces the highly-respected annual Social Media Safety Index (SMSI) and researches, monitors, and reports on a variety of issues facing LGBTQ social media users — with a focus on safety, privacy, and expression.