Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, on Tuesday announced significant revisions to its content moderation guidelines—most notably the elimination of its professional fact-checking program in the United States and the loosening of long-standing prohibitions on hate speech. While CEO Mark Zuckerberg framed these adjustments as part of a broader commitment to “free expression,” many in the transgender community worry that the updated rules will allow a troubling rise in targeted abuse on Meta’s platforms. At a time when transgender individuals already face high levels of online harassment, these policy changes threaten the safety and well-being of users who rely on social media for community and support.
Loosening Restrictions on Hate Speech
Under Meta’s new guidelines, certain types of harmful language and rhetoric that once fell under “hate speech” violations are now deemed permissible. The policy explicitly allows previously banned comments targeting transgender and non-binary people—such as misgendering them as “it”—and statements claiming that transgender individuals are mentally ill or “abnormal.” Additionally, references to women as “household objects or property,” once expressly prohibited, are now missing from the hate speech section. Critics argue that such revisions open the door to a more toxic environment, where harmful stereotypes and demeaning language can flourish unchecked.
This policy shift also removes prohibitions against denying the existence of “protected” groups. Previously, content that suggested a certain community “doesn’t or shouldn’t exist” was subject to removal. Under the new rules, such statements fall into a gray area, no longer clearly disallowed. In tandem, Meta has added language permitting political arguments that could exclude transgender people from public life, such as limiting their participation in the military, law enforcement, or teaching roles.
Elimination of Independent Fact-Checking
Compounding these worries is Meta’s decision to eliminate its network of independent fact-checkers within the United States, a system once relied upon to verify the accuracy of news articles, viral posts, and other content. Instead, Meta will depend on “community notes” to provide context for posts. These crowd-sourced corrections may offer useful information, but many advocacy groups question whether this approach can match the thoroughness and reliability of professional review.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that this pivot to a more laissez-faire style of content moderation will likely mean that Meta will “catch less bad stuff.” While the company claims it will still remove content that incites violence or promotes terrorism, there is broad concern that more subtle forms of hate and harassment—particularly toward transgender users—could now slip through the cracks. A spokesperson for Meta reiterated that the company intends to continue enforcing prohibitions on slurs and explicit attacks against certain groups. However, the updates to Meta’s hateful conduct policy already suggest a retreat from strong protections for transgender and other marginalized users.
Potential Consequences for Transgender Users
For transgender people, these policy changes could hardly come at a worse moment. With the 2024 election cycle looming, political rhetoric is intensifying, and transgender rights have frequently been targeted in public discourse. Many trans users worry that organized harassment campaigns will now be far easier to orchestrate on Facebook and Instagram, given the more permissive content guidelines. Existing data from multiple organizations that track online harassment reveal that transgender people already encounter disproportionately high levels of bullying on social media platforms.
Among the newly allowed forms of speech are comments calling into question the legitimacy of transgender identities or perpetuating harmful myths. For instance, the policy explicitly allows allegations of mental illness or “abnormality” if they are based on gender or sexual orientation—claims that many medical experts denounce as misinformation. In an environment where commentary like this could flourish without consequence, transgender communities fear the emotional toll of repeated exposure to hateful rhetoric, which can exacerbate issues like anxiety, depression, and isolation.
Past Content Removals at Transvitae.com
Transvitae.com, a site dedicated to covering news and advocacy for transgender individuals, has experienced firsthand the imbalanced approach to content moderation on Facebook. Several of our articles, focusing on how a potential second Trump administration could endanger transgender rights, were removed for “spam” violations—often with no clear explanation. These pieces, published during the run-up to the 2024 election cycle, highlighted potential threats to healthcare access, anti-discrimination protections, and military service opportunities for transgender people. Despite containing no hate speech or disinformation, they disappeared from Facebook, depriving readers of critical information.
These incidents underscore how Meta’s moderation policies can unevenly affect users. While neutral or supportive content about transgender issues occasionally disappears without real justification, hostile content could now be greenlit under the new guidelines. This disconnect between policy on paper and its real-world enforcement, critics contend, demonstrates how easily marginalized voices can be silenced—even unintentionally—while harmful voices might receive a free pass.
Dangers of Automated Moderation
In announcing the dissolution of its fact-checking network, Meta also stated that it would rely more heavily on automated systems that scan for policy violations, though with a tighter focus on “extreme” violations such as terrorism and child sexual exploitation. Historically, automated systems have struggled to interpret context and nuance, leading to the removal of benign or even supportive content while failing to catch more subtle but damaging harassment.
For transgender users, this tech-driven model raises concerns. Misgendering, for example, might not trigger a system’s alarms if the language is not categorized as a slur. And if the updates to Meta’s policies now explicitly allow certain forms of harassment under the guise of political or religious speech, automated filters will be even less likely to intervene. Such a permissive environment runs the risk of emboldening individuals who seek to marginalize or harm transgender people online.
Emotional and Social Impacts
The repercussions of an increasingly hostile social media environment extend beyond digital spaces. Many transgender people find crucial support systems on Facebook and Instagram. Youths exploring their identity often turn to online groups where they can feel safe, share experiences, and seek guidance. For transgender adults, social media can be a lifeline for connecting with allies, accessing information about healthcare services, and participating in advocacy efforts.
Should these changes give rise to more frequent hate speech or harassment, the psychological toll on transgender individuals cannot be overstated. Exposure to bigotry on social media can fuel stress, anxiety, and feelings of vulnerability. When platforms fail to respond effectively to harmful behavior—or worse, when platform policies legitimize it—transgender users may withdraw from online spaces altogether. This isolation can have far-reaching effects, breaking down supportive networks and making it more difficult for trans people to advocate for their rights, inform their communities, and stay connected with loved ones.
The Road Ahead
Zuckerberg maintains that rolling back certain restrictions will protect free expression by reducing wrongful takedowns of content that should have remained online. However, transgender communities recall how legitimate articles—like those previously posted by transvitae.com—were incorrectly removed before. The fear is that newly permissible forms of bigotry could be unleashed right when trans people need protection the most.
Meta insists it will continue banning calls for violence and the use of slurs, but the removal of previous safeguards and the weakening of hateful conduct standards have left activists and users skeptical. Some transgender advocacy groups are urging their followers to document and report hate speech diligently, even if Meta’s new guidelines appear more permissive. Others recommend adjusting privacy settings, blocking harassers, and relying on smaller, more tightly moderated online forums for support. Yet none of these measures fully compensate for a platform policy that no longer prioritizes the well-being of its most vulnerable users.
The Bottom Line
Meta’s sweeping policy changes raise serious questions about the future of transgender safety on Facebook and Instagram. By loosening hate speech rules, removing professional fact-checkers, and focusing automated systems primarily on extreme violations, Meta has effectively weakened protections for marginalized groups. For transgender individuals—who already navigate a climate of heightened hostility—this shift could be devastating. The risk of increased harassment, demeaning rhetoric, and organized bullying looms large.
Transgender communities have long shown resilience, turning digital spaces into powerful platforms for advocacy, education, and support. However, this new era of Meta’s content moderation tests that resilience in unprecedented ways. As 2025 is here and Donald Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, it remains more important than ever to stand with transgender individuals, document harassment when it occurs, and demand that platforms take steps to protect those who are most at risk. Only by holding Meta accountable to its responsibility for user safety can we hope to preserve the sense of community and inclusivity that social media was once intended to provide.
