In 2024, voice assistants with artificial intelligence (AI) will probably be on the forefront worldwide 8 billiona couple of per person on the planet. These assistants are helpful, polite – and almost at all times female.
Their names also carry gender connotations. For example, Apple's Siri – a Scandinavian female name – means “beautiful woman who will lead you to victory“.
Meanwhile, as IBM's Watson for Oncology launched in 2015 To help doctors process medical data, a was given male voice. The message is obvious: women serve and men teach.
This isn’t harmless branding – it’s a design alternative that empowers existing stereotypes in regards to the roles that ladies and men play in society.
This isn't just symbolic either. These decisions have real consequences as they normalize gender subordination and pose the chance of abuse.
The dark side of “friendly” AI
Current research shows the extent of harmful interactions with feminized AI.
A 2025 study found as much as 50% of human-machine exchanges were verbally abusive.
Another study in 2020, the number ranged from 10% to 44%, with conversations often containing sexually explicit language.
Nevertheless, there isn’t any systemic change happening within the industry, which many developers still depend on today pre-coded answers to verbal abuse. For example: “Hmm, I’m unsure what you meant by that query.”
These patterns raise real concerns that such behavior could impact social relationships.
Gender is at the center of the issue.
A 2023 experiment showed that 18% of user interactions with a female impersonated agent focused on sex, in comparison with 10% for a male impersonation and only 2% for a gender-nonconforming robot.
These numbers may underestimate the issue since it is difficult to detect suggestive language. In some cases the numbers are shocking. Brazilian bank Bradesco reported that it received feminized chatbot 95,000 sexually harassing messages in a single yr.
Even more disturbing is how quickly abuse escalates.
Microsoft's Tay chatbotwhich was posted on Twitter during testing in 2016, lasted just 16 hours before users trained it to spit out racist and misogynistic slurs.
In Korea, Luda was manipulated into responding to sexual requests as an obedient “sex slave.” But for some within the Korean online communityIt is a “victimless crime.”
In reality, the design decisions behind these technologies—female voices, respectful responses, playful distractions—create a permissive environment for gendered aggression.
These interactions reflect and reinforce real-world misogyny by teaching users that it is suitable to command, insult, and sexualize “them.” If abuse becomes routine in digital spaces, we must seriously consider the chance of it affecting offline behavior.
Ignoring gender bias concerns
Regulation is Struggling to maintain up with the rise of this problem. Gender discrimination isn’t viewed as a high risk and is commonly assumed to be remediable through design.
While the European Union AI law requires risk assessments for high-risk applications and prohibits Systems which are considered “unacceptable risk” should not considered “high risk” by most AI assistants.
Gender stereotyping or the normalization of verbal abuse or harassment doesn’t meet the present standards for banned AI under the European Union AI Law. Extreme cases, equivalent to voice assistant technologies distort an individual's behavior and encourage dangerous behavior for instance, would fall under the law and be prohibited.
While Canada mandates gender impact assessments Government schemes don’t cover the private sector.
These are essential steps. But they’re still limited and in addition rare exceptions to the norm.
In most jurisdictions there are not any rules for coping with gender stereotypes in AI design or their consequences. Where regulations exist, they emphasize transparency and accountability and mask (or just ignore) concerns about gender bias.
In Australia, the federal government has signaled it would depend on existing frameworks somewhat than developing AI-specific rules.
This regulatory vacuum is very important because AI just isn’t static. Every sexist command, every abusive interaction impacts systems that shape future outcomes. Without intervention, we risk embedding human misogyny firmly into the digital infrastructure of on a regular basis life.
Not all assistive technologies – including those with a female gender – are harmful. You can enable, educate and promote women's rights. In KenyaFor example, sexual and reproductive health chatbots have increased young people's access to information in comparison with traditional tools.
The challenge is to seek out a balance: encouraging innovation while setting parameters to make sure standards are met, rights are respected, and designers are held accountable once they should not.
A systemic problem
The problem isn't just with Siri or Alexa, it's systemic.
Women do make-up only 22% of AI experts worldwide – and their absence from the design tables signifies that technologies are built on narrow perspectives.
Now a 2015 Opinion poll Surveying over 200 older women in Silicon Valley found that 65% had experienced unwanted sexual advances from a supervisor. The culture that shapes AI is deeply unequal.
Hopeful narratives about “eliminating bias” through higher design or ethics guidelines ring hole without enforcement. Voluntary codes cannot dismantle entrenched norms.
Legislation must recognize gender-based harm as high risk, require gender-specific impact assessments and require firms to display that they’ve minimized such harm. If failure occurs, penalties should be imposed.
Regulation alone just isn’t enough. Education, particularly within the technology sector, is critical to understanding the impact of gender bias in voice assistants. These tools are products of human selections, and these selections perpetuate a world through which women—real or virtual—are portrayed as serving, submissive, or silent.
