Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Apologizes To Drag Queens Over "Real Name" Rule

An anonymous reader writes Facebook apologized to drag queens and the LGBT community after an outcry over the social network's policy of requiring members to use real names on their accounts. While the policy itself will stay in place, Facebook says, it will be changing how the rule is enforced. In a Wednesday post, Facebook's Chief Product Officer Chris Cox apologized to "the affected community of drag queens, drag kings, transgender, and extensive community of our friends, neighbors, and members of the LGBT community for the hardship that we've put you through in dealing with your Facebook accounts over the past few weeks."

46 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Re:its their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So drag queens can use fake names but the rest cant?

  2. What real name policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If fb is serious and enforcing the policy, their user count will be reduced by at least 60 percent which essentially cut the worth of the company in half.

    1. Re:What real name policy? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dare bet fake names also account for a disproportionally large amount of activity.
      Why would you bother signing up a fake account if you're not going to use the account?

      Anonymity is part of the Internet--it creates problems, sure, but it also allows people to say what they actually think without fear of being punished for having the "Wrong" viewpoint. For example, your bleeding heart liberal ways will likely run afoul of your boss' staunch conservatism, and if he's a jerk, might damage your career if he knew about it.

      There's nothing wrong with having any specific point of view, but about having the ability to selectively determine who knows you have this belief without being constrained about expressing it.

      --
      Who did what now?
    2. Re:What real name policy? by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

      That's why you have Linkedin for your professional network, and Facebook for your private network. If your professional network can't handle your private views, then don't mix the two.

    3. Re:What real name policy? by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that most of the people I know on FB don't use their real names, I think FB is just being super-silly.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:What real name policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why you have... Facebook for your private network.

      Ha Ha Ha! Good one!

    5. Re:What real name policy? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2

      then don't fucking announce it in a public forum.

      Utter nonsense: Anonymity is a requirement for true free speech. Much of the muckraking done to start the American Revolution was done anonymously because the authors of the papers didn't want to be hung by British loyalists. Ditto France. Ditto most major popular revolutions in truly oppressive countries: The real "thought leaders" publish anonymously to keep themselves alive.

      "Free speech" is meaningless if there isn't a way to publish something without your name on it--requiring a "real name" for someone's expression to be considered valid negates free speech because it creates a weapon for the powerful to punish people with the "wrong" opinion. Yes, part of free speech is taking responsibility for what you've said, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for that to include the concept that you should be willing to be executed or murdered for publishing your anti-government opinion, and if you're not, you're too much of a pussy for your opinion to matter.

      --
      Who did what now?
  3. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see no reason why any person with a private Facebook page should be given special status or exemptions from the rules just because of some arbitrary, momentarily popular PC BS category.

    1. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I see no reason why any person with a private Facebook page should be given special status or exemptions from the rules just because of some arbitrary, momentarily popular PC BS category.

      Except that there are whole classes of FB profiles out there that do not have real names attached to them and were not targeted .. EG Profiles named for/after pets.

      This is not a case of PC gone wild, but genuine discrimination.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Profiles for pets, WTF? Can teddy bears have profiles too? Are the pets allowed to have political opinions?

      Why are facebook apologising to all LGBTs and not just Drag Queens? Why do drag queens get to have an alias and not straight people who wear straight peoples clothes. If women wear trousers do they get to call themselves cross-dressers and get an alias? If the pet cross-dresses can it have an alias?

      This is all fucking insane.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by pla · · Score: 2

      Profiles for pets, WTF? Can teddy bears have profiles too? Are the pets allowed to have political opinions?

      "My" Facebook page exists solely for my pets. And yes, they have political opinions (they favor absolute monarchy justified by the doctrine of the Divine Right of Cats).

      See, I have zero interest in what my 6000 closest "friends" do. I have zero interest in sharing details of the texture of my morning bowel movement with half the planet (or even just with those 6000 "friends"). I have zero interest in seeing targeted ads based on my preferred types of breakfast cereal or cars or sex toys.

      Far, far too many people (and even many small businesses), however, have Facebook pages as their primary online presence. Seeing their "public" pages doesn't require "friend"ing them, but it does require having a Facebook login. As a result, I do have use for a functional Facebook login; I just have no interest whatsoever in the entire fad of "social" networking.

      Thus, my cats / teddy bear / couch has a Facebook page. If Facebook really decides to crack down on the 80% of users with fake profile info, hey, they own the site and can make that decision. And honestly, I would love that to happen, because I would no longer need a Facebook, because they would no longer any content worth remembering yet another password to access.

    4. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by rwise2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Profiles for pets, WTF? Can teddy bears have profiles too? Are the pets allowed to have political opinions?

      Why are facebook apologising to all LGBTs and not just Drag Queens? Why do drag queens get to have an alias and not straight people who wear straight peoples clothes. If women wear trousers do they get to call themselves cross-dressers and get an alias? If the pet cross-dresses can it have an alias?

      This is all fucking insane.

      Well what about writers with pen names? Musicians and actors with stage names?

      Sting has a facebook page. His real name is not Sting, so why should he have special privileges?

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    5. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by Velex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, it's been a while, Green Site!

      Why are facebook apologising to all LGBTs and not just Drag Queens?

      Ok, there's a great deal of confusion I see here. It's a question of use-case.

      Drag queens are performing artists. See Rue Paul or Pandora Boxx, neither of which iirc use HRT or intend to transition to adopting their performing identities as their own 24/7. Companies get FB pages, so why shouldn't their performing identities get FB pages in addition to their own personal pages?

      I find it odd that FB is apologizing to drag queens or that they would even target drag queens. (I'd also like to add that one curious thing I read in Whipping Girl is that drag queens are often welcomed into the female restroom, but trans women are shunned from that place.)

      In the case of trans men and women, if FB has targeted them (I haven't been), FB is clearly wrong and the apology is justified. Especially in the case of trans women, proceeding with a legal name change is a risk that can land one homeless in a gutter. I'd also like to add that in my personal experience that I'm gendered female by others quite often (just lucky I guess), however changing my real name without being able to go without a job for a year or two would be suicidal. Employers have this little habit of demanding documents that contain one's legal gender. If one's legal gender doesn't match with the gender of one's identity and the gender others assign to one, it's OMG fucking holy shit GTFO.

      There's also the complication that a name change is not enough to get those documents to match one's lived gender. My state requires bottom surgery before the documents can be amended, although some clever trans women are able to get the gender on their driver's license changed at the DMV with a little social engineering (others aren't so lucky). Other states make it impossible to change those documents even with bottom surgery.

      My friends know me by one name. My employer and clients know me by another. However, FB is not a network for professionals so instead I have a LinkedIn profile with one name and a FB profile I haven't touched in probably two years with another name (just a few more years and it'll be my real name), the one my friends know me as.

      Why do drag queens get to have an alias and not straight people who wear straight peoples clothes.

      What is straight peoples' clothes, exactly? Do homosexuals wear something different to the office? In my experience, gays and lesbians tend to dress just the same as their heterosexual peers.

      Yes, I'm intentionally being obtuse. I hope I addressed the confusion about drag above. This is a question of identity.

      I'd also like to give you something to think about. Currently I'm between genders, so it's all wibbly-wobbly. However, should I obtain bottom surgery after going full time as a woman, I will then be a heterosexual woman and indistinguishable from any other straight woman who cannot have children due to whatever medical problem.

      Your head will asplode the day the procedure for a barren cisgendered woman to receive a transplanted uterus (I'm too lazy to find the link, but I believe the procedure involved transplanting her mother's uterus into her so that she could have children) is expanded to transgendered women.

      If women wear trousers do they get to call themselves cross-dressers and get an alias?

      Why would a cisgendered woman want to have a male identity? If this is a case of a trans man or somebody experimenting with presenting a male identity, then I would say it's justified.

      I've met a few trans men, and the decision to undergo gender transition is an even bigger hurdle for them than trans women. There is no bottom surgery they can hope for, and they have to be absolutely certain before they expose their bodies to testosterone. Estrogen is easy, and its changes to the body can be hidden or even reversed. That's

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    6. Re:Reverse discrimination is still discrimination by mujadaddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The policy isn't the issue.

      Yes it is.

      Where is this insistence on real-naming coming from? Not the users (ie, 'the product'), but the advertisers (ie, 'the customers'). The users know their friends' aliases, but the advertisers can't or won't make that leap without some help in the form of arbitrary Terms of Use.

      The policy IS the issue. The drag performers are just a symptom.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  4. Why only LGBT? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why would LGBT members require more of an apology than heterosexual cisgenders who desire to use another name?

    1. Re:Why only LGBT? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Orwell said it best: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    2. Re:Why only LGBT? by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

      One gender identity good, two gender identities BETTER.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  5. Ok by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Our policy has never been to require everyone on Facebook to use their legal name," Cox said. "The spirit of our policy is that everyone on Facebook uses the authentic name they use in real life. For Sister Roma, that's Sister Roma. For Lil Miss Hot Mess, that's Lil Miss Hot Mess."

    So if Fred Phelps had gone around calling himself God's Fag Killing Machine, Facebook would obviously have let him use that name under this "understanding" of their policy. Right? Right?..

    1. Re:Ok by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      So if Fred Phelps had gone around calling himself God's Fag Killing Machine

      Well I always did think Fred Phelps was a pseudonym.

    2. Re:Ok by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Facebook's most practical approach would be to punt to the courts. Would the courts allow "God's Fag Killing Machine" as a name change? That kid who was taken away from his parents for being named "Adolph Hitler [smith-or-whatever]" will be old enough to sign up for a Facebook account in a few years.

      The bind they're in is that by not adhering to the legal regime, they're having to make judgment calls - so far they can sit on their terms of service and tell those who are offended by everything to take a walk, but just watch some court tell them people have a right to a Facebook account, and then they'll be in a world of hurt (in many, many ways).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. Taking Offense is Taking Over by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Heaven forbid a publicly traded company or individual should make a social faux paus that bucks conventional political correctness.

    Alternative lifestyles are free to be offensive to some niches of society. Thus, neither are you, Lil Miss Hot Mess, guaranteed the right not to be offended.

    Being driven by ratings based on the viewing habits of folks who have checked out, the fourth estate is there in force to address every imaginable social injustice.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Taking Offense is Taking Over by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      conventional political correctness.

      Otherwise known as being considerate and polite. Old-fashioned, I know.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:Taking Offense is Taking Over by hink · · Score: 2

      Odd how people who aren't in the affected group always call it "political correctness", and the people who are in the affected group call it "politeness" or "considerate".

      How exactly does this change in policy hurt your tender feelings?

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    3. Re:Taking Offense is Taking Over by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      She didn't demand the "right" not to be offended, she just said she was offended and Facebook decided to do something about it because they realized they had made a mistake.

      Honestly, stop trying to be a victim here. There is no political correctness, no agenda, no-one is out to take away your rights. It's just a normal complaint about something Facebook probably never intended in the first place and was happy to fix.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Now apologize to whistle-blowers. by briancox2 · · Score: 2

    OK Facebook. Now apologize to all of the affected whistle-blowers that can't openly protest and embarrass you into action.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  8. I'm a disembodied brain floating in a jar by DavidCBillen · · Score: 2

    I guess they think my account "bob disembodied brain" is a real person.

    1. Re:I'm a disembodied brain floating in a jar by neo-mkrey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought your name was Abby-something...

  9. Re:Good by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're very sorry for this policy which they intend to continue. But they're very sorry about it. And that's coming from the heart, man.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  10. Whoopi, Triple H, Gaga, and RuPaul by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    And that their drag persona and their day-job/legal identity are two spheres that many people want to keep separate?

    Not everyone uses the legal identity on the day job, especially in entertainment. Consider Caryn Johnson, whose day job identity is Whoopi Goldberg. Or Paul Levesque, who goes by Hunter Hearst Helmsley professionally (or Triple H for short). Or Stefani Germanotta, who took the name Lady Gaga from a Queen song, possibly to escape No Doubt-related jokes. On the other hand, RuPaul Charles's drag name is just that: RuPaul.

  11. Re:Good by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I love corporate apologies. They value my business, appreciate my concerns, and are always sorry for the way I felt about their behavior. No one else every says that to me on a regular basis.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  12. Being An Ignorant Dipshit is Taking Over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Newsflash: Drag queens, drag kings, and other people in the LGBT community can often go by pseudonyms because they might happen to live with a family that would put them out on the street if they found out. Drag queens, drag kings, and especially transgendered people are subject to not just that, but downright assault as a result of their lifestyle. This isn't about people being offended, this is about the fact that Facebook's policy could cause actual, physical harm to people. Fuck you, you ignorant fuckstick.

    1. Re:Being An Ignorant Dipshit is Taking Over by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Oh come on now. Just tell your parents what you do at night, down in the city, and see if they accept you for who you are.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  13. Re:catering to the mentally ill by mythix · · Score: 2

    This is totally besides the point.

    It's FB wanting to force people to use their real name, so they can identify you to do more stuff they shouldnt with your data.
    And now that there's a giant move to Ello, or at least it's starting, they're backtracking.
    They are catering to their profits, not to any subset of their users.

    Lots of people use fake names, just because they dont want to use their real names. Not because we were all molested.

  14. Re:its their own fault by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.

    I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  15. Way to be offensive in the apology by ugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The so-called "apology" is in itself offensive and patronizing. "Drag queens" to LGBT is what "Exotic dancers" are to being a straight woman (or a man, I suppose). The choice of names they used in the example is also not coincidental.

    I wonder if reaction would have been different were facebook to require all married women to use their husbands name (Mrs Robinson), and then apologized by way by letting them keep their "Lil Miss Makemeasammich" monikers.

    It's only "PC bullshit" until it's your problem.

  16. Re:its their own fault by style7711 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If their birth name is that much of a burden they can legally change it. Problem solved.

  17. People who who work with kids also use fake names by cout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Teachers and counsellors often don't want the kids they work with to be able to easily find them on facebook, so they use fake names. I have many friends who do this. So far they haven't been affected by any rule enforcement.

  18. Re:its their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have such a fundamental misunderstanding of some very basic concepts of justice (which have been tackled over and fucking over throughout the last 100 years of jurisprudence) that I'm not sure whether to bother replying to you.

    Consider the following rule: "Anyone whose hair holds a pencil when inserted into the hair is not permitted into the party."

    Is it unfair?

    Well, no, on the surface of it, it isn't. Pretty simple rule, really? Applies to everyone. Everyone's treated the same. If you don't like it, don't spray/curl your hair, right?

    No, of course not. It's a test for blackness. A person who has black skin is way more likely to fail the test than a person who has white skin. It's inherent to black people that they have curlier, tougher hair which is more likely to hold a pencil.

    Just as it's inherent to transgender people that their sex organs do not reflect their psychological gender, so there is a very high likelihood that they are misnamed at birth.

    Justice does not just consider whether a rule is equally applied to everyone, but whether a rule in effect treats everyone equally. Only in exceptional circumstances do we consider as just a rule which somehow disadvantages a group because of some innate feature of that group.

    Reality: deal with it.

  19. Re: its their own fault by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    use your real name like us normal folks

    Wow, I have now met the real person called "Anonymous Coward"

    Is it me or is it just funny that someone posted anonymously that you should used your real name like "Normal Folks"

  20. Re: its their own fault by geekoid · · Score: 2

    He is saying the rule(regardless of what it is) should be evenly applied.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Re:its their own fault by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.

    I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.

    If you actually read the news stories (it's been widely reported) you'll find out that one individual reported 200 xgenders. Sounds to me like someone who was targeting a group based on their gender expression. Facebook said they didn't catch what had happened at first because they get thousands of reports.

    Facebook clarified it's policy by saying that you can go by the name you're known by to the general public. How would you like it if you couldn't go by the nickname you've been using since grade school, but had to use your "real name"? "William Robert Doe? Who the heck is that? Oh, you mean Billy-Bob?"

    Transgenders who are not transsexuals generally retain their legal birth name for things such as banking, etc. However, in the context of social interactions, what is the harm in letting them use the name that their friends and the general public know them as? Isn't it supposed to be a social network, and not a courtroom?

    For transsexuals, do you have any idea of how long it takes to do the paperwork in some jurisdictions? Some places will refuse to change your name without a valid reason, backed up by documentation. And what is someone supposed to do while they're transitioning? Go by their old name (one that conforms to their old gender) on Facebook when their co-workers know them by a different name and gender? The Standards of Care for transsexuals require that you live and work full-time in your target gender for at least a year. So you've got a year when you don't have that documentation, and then another year while it goes through - minimum. Sure, YMMV, but that's the way it is where I live.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  22. Re:its their own fault by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    voter id laws are in no way racist. you need an ID to buy beer, smokes, or enter the whitehouse (legally, not just hopping the fense)

    If obama requires an ID to meet the president, why is it unfair to need one to vote for him?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  23. Re:its their own fault by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    ", but transgender people are unfairly burdened by a requirement of using their birth name when that doesn't agree with the different name they're getting most people (hoping eventually everyone) to use in the real world."

    They want people to use that name. So why doesn't everyone have the right to pick the name they want to be called on Facebook?

    You allow everybody pick their name or you do not.
    Or if you really do not like your name you can always have it legally changed.
    In discrimination. You are saying that those people are so not like normal people that you must make a special exception for them.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  24. yeah, the integrity of Facebook is at stake by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    Kind of hard to believe Facebook really is trying to protect the integrity and reputability of its users, and applying rules to people equally. Mark Zuckerberg's dog has a fucking account -- tell me how that's ok?

  25. Re:its their own fault by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Voter ID laws shouldn't be racist. Everyone should have ID, especially if they want to vote exactly one time.

    Unfortunately voter ID laws were foisted on counties and districts where those enacting them knew that it would impact urban (and thus likely democratic) voters disproportionately. It's the sort of change that you make an election or two in the future, and send a state ID team out to major polling places now, so people are prepared when your sensible change rolls around.

    ...or, you rush it into place when you know it turns away those filthy liberals. Whichever fits your agenda.

  26. Re:its their own fault by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Obviously nothing is stopping the "straight community" from using fake names on Facebook. Look at how many people have more than one account.

    It's only when someone complains that Facebook gets grumpy. In this case 1 individual spent their time targeting 200 people. Sounds to me like that 1 individual has a problem.

    Also, many transgenders and transsexuals are members of the "straight community." The definition of "straight", for transgenders who are not transsexual is straight-forward (pardon the pun); "straight" for a transsexual is defined by their sexual preference in their target gender. For example, a male-to-female transsexual can be either "straight, bi, or lesbian," while a male cross-dresser can be "straight, bi, or gay."

    Facebook has clarified their position so that you should use the name you're known by publicly. For example, "Billy-Bob" instead of "William Robert", or "Mary-Ann" instead of "Marienka Anastasia". You legally have the right to use the name you're know as publicly. All that's happened is that Facebook has acknowledged that the same applies to LGBT as to everyone else. Sounds to me like it IS about equal rights, not "special rights."

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.