Facebook's Discrimination Against the LGBT Community
My wife and I have made music together for the past 8 years, in an independent band named Unsung Lilly. We are passionate about creating epic, empowering pop music.
As a same-sex couple, we have been heartened recently by the improved representation of LGBTQ people on television, and we are grateful that most people we meet are accepting of our relationship. It’s enough to make you think that maybe society has fully accepted that ‘love is love.’
Unfortunately, our recent experience with Facebook suggests otherwise. When Facebook’s platform refused to allow us to fully express ourselves as both artists and a same-sex couple, it brought back painful memories of discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
Like all musicians, COVID hit us hard. We lost all our income, and because we were in the United States on work visas, we were unable to claim unemployment benefits without risking our visas.
We were in a difficult spot, and we turned to our community on Facebook for help. We asked our fans to join our Patreon community and go behind the scenes of the creation of our new album, in the hopes that their support would keep us afloat in these unprecedented times.
We posted a video on Facebook, announcing our new album and encouraging fans to join our Patreon page. We made it a sponsored ad so we could reach as many of our fans as possible.
The ad, unfortunately, was rejected. While this happens sometimes, I couldn’t believe it when I saw the reason: Facebook had labeled our video as containing “adult sexually explicit content.”
Assuming there must have been a mistake, we sought multiple appeals and resubmitted the ad several times, but each time received the same rejection message.
We wracked our brains wondering what could be sexually explicit about our video…and then realized that it might be the image of us early in the video. It’s a romantic image of us with our foreheads touching. We use the image for all our profile photos across all platforms because we believe it’s a beautiful artistic shot of two people in love. You can .
When we talked about what happened on our social pages, many of our friends and fans shared our outrage. Some people even came up with possible explanations for why the ad was rejected. These ideas included theories such as “Facebook doesn’t allow intimacy of any kind in their advertisements, it would have been the same with a hetero couple,” and “what about the nature of some of the dancing shown later in the video.” We wanted to understand why our ad was rejected. So, we ran a test. We posted another ad with the exact same video and copy, but we changed the photo of us to a ‘nonromantic’ photo. The ad was approved.
Next, we tried the same video and copy but replaced the photo of us with a picture of a heterosexual couple in the same romantic pose.
Guess what? The ad with the heterosexual couple was approved too.
The ACLU helped us contact Facebook. The company claimed the ads were rejected ‘incorrectly’ and assured us that the rejection had nothing to do with the LGBTQ content, but rather the dancing in the video. They would not explain why the ad with the exact same dancing but with a heterosexual couple was accepted in our tests.
If Facebook is restricting LGBTQ content because Facebook’s systems consider our kind of love to be “adult” and “sexually explicit”, that means they are actively erasing the LGBTQ experience and silencing LGBTQ voices.
As members of the LGBTQ community, we know how important it is to see ourselves represented and reflected in the media. Visibility can save lives, particularly for transgender people, LGBTQ people of color, and youth.
Women are often over-sexualized, and female couples even more so. Two women in love, gently resting their foreheads together is romantic—not sexual. By rejecting images like this, Facebook is reinforcing the hyper-sexualization of women and female couples.
When we spoke on social media about our experience, other LGBTQ people shared similar stories of being censored by Facebook. These are not isolated incidents. In fact, we learned that . And Facebook’s problems are not limited to the LGBTQ community, have recently seen their pages temporarily taken down completely. Facebook calls these “mistakes” but isn’t doing enough to stop them from happening again.
Facebook is a platform that claims to connect people, so why does their platform silence LGBTQ voices and prevent them from connecting with their communities? Facebook has a responsibility to represent everyone in a fair and just manner. That means addressing how the LGBTQ community can feel at home on Facebook when the platform appears to discriminate against members of our community for showing who we are.
Today we join the in calling on Facebook to take the following steps:
- Audit Facebook’s Community Standards and Advertising Policies.
Facebook should commit to an audit of its community standards and advertising policies, looking specifically at whether standards for “adult” content disproportionately remove content of women and same-sex couples. - Real Removal Transparency.
Facebook’s message about our ad violating the rules was confusing and unhelpful, which prompted us to design a test to determine what happened. Facebook should tell all users exactly what about their content purportedly broke the rules. - Meaningful review of a contested removal.
We were privileged to have contacts at the ACLU who could reach out to Facebook on our behalf, but that shouldn’t be necessary. Facebook should commit to ensuring that appeals are taken seriously, carefully considered, and communicated effectively to users.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.