META Oversight Allows Anti-Trans Hate from Others, But Tells Meta to Remove Its Own

 

GLAAD, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, has 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. The Washington Post has 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 U.S.

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.

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.)

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.

While Meta rolled back LGBTQ protection aspects of its Hateful Conduct policy in January, its 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”). 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.”

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.

Read GLAAD’s full public comment here.

As 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 Meta’s shareholders.

A 2024 GLAAD report found that Meta is failing to moderate extreme anti-trans hate across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. The fourth annual GLAAD Social Media Safety Index & Platform Scorecard (SMSI)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%, and 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 shadow-banning.
• There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from the platforms.

Read the April 24, 2025 GLAAD article.

Trump's Order Guts Cornerstone of Modern Civil Rights Law Used to Enforce Antidiscrimination Laws

 

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement” of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability, which has long enabled courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability. The order also instructs the U.S. attorney general to repeal key components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bar any program receiving federal financial support from discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.”

Disparate impact claims allow consumers to challenge a variety of discriminatory practices aimed at people of color, people with disabilities, families with young children, and women, among others. These practices would otherwise, even when identified, go unaddressed. Lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims have exposed and remedied longstanding patterns of discrimination and brought relief to thousands of consumers. During the subprime lending boom that led to the Great Recession of 2008, communities of color were targeted for high-risk, high interest rate loans, and they were hit especially hard by the financial crisis. Many lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims were filed in an attempt to alter this toxic reality and bring relief to individual consumers. These lawsuits unmasked widespread discriminatory lending practices. 

Derek Black, who directs the Constitutional Law Center at the University of South Carolina, said the administration was misstating the law. “If it were true that disparate-impact liability creates ‘a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination,’ we might have rid the country of disparities long ago,” he wrote on X. The concept of disparate impact, she said, prevents employers from excluding qualified candidates because of their race, gender or another protected characteristic.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court set precedent when it unanimously ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that the company could not use arbitrary tests or requirements in hiring and promotion if it could not prove they served a genuine business need. The court found that even if the company was not purposefully trying to discriminate based on race, if the policies had a discriminatory effect, they were illegal.

“There’s been an effort to say that with discrimination, the only kind of harm we care about is the egregious, smoking-gun evidence of animus or harassment, or where somebody is bigoted,” Yang said. “But there is often very significant harm to individuals from organizational practices that are discriminatory, yet very difficult to prove.”

While Trump’s executive order does not stop private individuals from suing over workplace and other kinds of discrimination. States and localities are also strengthening their nondiscrimination laws.

Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post article.

<a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/still-life-business-roles-with-various-pawns_24749557.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=4&uuid=1b91fbd8-73b8-430c-92bd-eb1be0796a39&query=one+is+excluded+from+group">Image by freepik</a>.

Obituary: Herbert J. Gans, Poverty & Urban Researcher, 97

Gans, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who became an innovative sociologist in the U.S., explored the myths and misconceptions surrounding poverty, class, urban renewal, and suburban malaise. A longtime professor at Columbia University and former president of the American Sociological Association, Gans was an Ivy League academic, an advocate for liberal causes and a social critic, contributing essays to many publications. He aimed, he said, to connect his research with the lives of ordinary people, and to work toward answering a fundamental question: “What is a good society, and how can sociology help bring it about?” His writing covered Americana from the postwar years into the 2000s, exploring race relations, economic problems, highbrow and popular cultures, nostalgia for the rural past, and an assortment of provocative questions: Why do the poor get poorer and the rich richer? Can Jews and Italians get along in Canarsie? Is landmarks preservation elitist? 

Gans served on the Kerner Commission, which President Lyndon B. Johnson established in 1967 to investigate the cause of riots and unrest that had broken out in cities around the country. He helped draft the commission’s report, an indictment of White racism that warned that “our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal.”

His first book, The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans (New York: Free Press, 1962), was a vivid chronicle of an Italian American enclave that was displaced and leveled by urban renewal. Gans showed how the area was far from the slum that government officials had made it out to be, and argued that a middle-class bias had caused the low-rent neighborhood to be wrongly perceived as derelict and run-down. Gans wrote frequently about the poor and working classes, arguing for new anti-poverty measures in his 1995 book The War Against The Poor: The Underclass And Antipoverty Policy. As he saw it, the country’s least privileged had been stigmatized through terms like “underclass,” which contributed to a sense in which the poor were to be blamed for their condition, and ignored or punished rather than helped. An important article in this vein was his "The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All," (Social Policy, July/August 1971: pp. 20-24).

Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post obituary.

On Behalf of Equal Rights Center, Relman Colfax PLLC Alleges Washington, DC-Based UDR Tenant Screening Policies are Discriminatory

On April 25, 2025, Relman Colfax filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court on behalf of the Equal Rights Center against UDR, Inc. and the owners of The MO apartment building (in northeast D.C.) alleging that The MO’s tenant screening policies discriminate against housing voucher holders and housing applicants with criminal legal histories in violation of the Washington, D.C. Human Rights Act and the D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act of 2016.

The complaint alleges that the defendants openly discriminate based on applicants’ source of income and criminal legal history, even posting some of their illegal policies on The MO’s website. ERC claims that these policies erect yet another barrier to housing for populations for which stable housing is particularly important.

The ERC conducted an investigation using fair housing testers to ascertain whether Defendants were engaging in unlawful discrimination against individuals attempting to rent units at The MO. Through its investigation, the ERC found that Defendants and their agents have a policy or practice of making statements and/or imposing conditions that exclude voucher holders based on illegal criteria, as well as renters with criminal histories from access to rental units at The MO. 

“ERC’s lawsuit employs consumer protection law in a pioneering effort to secure safe and affordable housing for D.C. residents,” stated Mirela Missova, Supervising Counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “Discriminatory policies significantly hinder the ability to safeguard low-income tenants.”

Through its complaint, ERC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that The MO comes into compliance with District requirements for equitable tenant screening policies. This lawsuit represents a critical step toward making equitable housing opportunities a reality in the District. The Relman Colfax litigation team consisted of Zoila Hinson, with paralegal assistance from Miriam Farah. The co-counsel is Mirela Missova of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Unfortunately, discrimination against tenants by rental housing providers for such illegal screening as housing discrimination are too frequent of late. For instance, a complaint was filed in November, 2024 regarding alleged discrimination against two private equity landlords in Indianapolis, Indiana.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Read the April 23, 2025 RC article.

Read the November 21, 2024 NBC TV10 Philadelphia article.

Federal Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order to Temporarily Stop HUD/DOGE’s Termination of FHIP Grants to Fight Housing Discrimination

 

After Relman Colfax PLLC and four members of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), On March 26th, Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the termination of 78 FHIP grants. 

The original legal action followed HUD’s sudden and alleged unlawful termination of grants disbursed under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). The termination of those grants jeopardizes over $30 million in critical, congressionally authorized funding for fair housing groups to fight housing discrimination and enforce fair housing laws throughout the U.S. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts, was brought on behalf of a proposed class of over 60 fair housing groups whose grants were abruptly terminated by HUD and DOGE on February 27, 2025. 

Fair housing groups, funded by FHIP, have long served as the backbone of efforts to combat housing discrimination, enforcing the Fair Housing Act (FHA). These groups investigate housing discrimination complaints, enforce fair housing laws, assist individuals facing discrimination, educate communities about their rights, and collaborate with local governments to expand fair and affordable housing opportunities. FHIP grants–which originated from Congress’s recognition of the central role of fair housing organizations in combatting housing discrimination–are a primary source of funding for fair housing groups.

On February 27th, a letter informed grantees that the terminations were effective that same day. 78 FHIP grants were terminated altogether, representing a primary source of funding for fair housing organizations in 33 states. The FHIP grants were halted at the direction of the DOGE, claiming the grants “no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities,” despite grantees performing activities aligned with Congressionally authorized aims. The filing argued that DOGE lacked the authority to direct HUD to cancel grants, and HUD cannot follow such directives.

Fair housing organizations, particularly the four named plaintiffs in the TRO filing, are already feeling the harm and devastating effects of this funding termination. The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Fair Housing Council of South Texas – San Antonio Fair Housing Council, and Housing Research and Advocacy Center – Fair Housing Center for Rights and Research are among the plaintiffs who have long fought to dismantle discriminatory housing practices in their respective regions and beyond.

Fair housing is a legal right, and FHIP grants were a promise to the American people that cannot be revoked at DOGE’s direction without any explanation. Relman Colfax and these organizations are resolute in fighting for the organizations, families, individuals, and communities that FHIP grants safeguard.

A copy of the filing can be found here.

Read the March 13, 2025 NFHA article.

Last Chance to Register for MCCR's Fair Housing Forum on Monday, April 28

 

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Monday, April 28 10:00am to 3:00pm Fair Housing Forum​​ Howard County Community College Smith Theater 10901 Little Patuxent Parkway Columbia, Maryland 21044 Register Online Join us for an insightful and interactive forum focused on Maryland's Fair Housing Laws. This event offers a unique opportunity to discuss, share, and address key issues and solutions in our state

Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships

UPCOMING EVENTS Thursday, April 17 at 1pm Civil Rights Coalition of Maryland - Virtual Open House #2 Registration Required: https://bit.ly/3E2lDwy

HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US

Economic Action MD Fund Fair Housing discussion on April 30th at the Northpoint Library

Everyone deserves a safe and affordable home. Yet, despite more than 40 years of civil rights work and laws, many Maryland residents still face discrimination when they seek an apartment or a mortgage. 

What kinds of fair housing issues happen most in Maryland? Where can individuals get help if they believe they’ve experienced housing discrimination? How does housing discrimination affect our community? Answers to these questions and many more will be topics at the April 30th Fair Housing discussion:

    April 30th, 6 - 7:30 p.m.

    Northpoint Library, 1716 Merritt Boulevard, Dundalk MD 21222

    Click Here to Register!

Our knowledgeable fair housing panelists include:

• Ahmna Khan, Director of Housing, Maryland Inclusive Housing.
• Susan McClanahan, Fair Housing Director, Equal Rights Center.
• Albert Turner, Attorney, Right to Housing Project, Public Justice Center.
• Moderated by: LaToya McKay, Fair Housing Specialist, Economic Action MD Fund.

We will also have resources on fair housing and other critical basic needs from nonprofits and state agencies including: the Family Crisis Center, Community Relations Commission, Community Assistance Network, Office of Attorney General Civil Rights, Fulton Bank, Economic Action Maryland Fund, Equal Rights Center, and Maryland Inclusive Housing.

Join us for this important discussion. Enjoy light food and refreshments and connect with groups that serve our community.  

We look forward to seeing you there!