Two Centuries of Sexism in British Parliament: A Computational Analysis of Women's Representation in the Hansard Corpus

The language a legislature uses to debate women's rights, even in favour of them, encodes systematic patterns of sexism that persist across two centuries. In this work, we analyse 6,531 speeches over 200 years of UK parliamentary debate (Hansard, 1803-2005) by using large language models to classify a speaker's perspective towards women's suffrage and political representation, as well as analyse sexist speech in parliament from the lens of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We also release this parliamentary dataset, an organized and metadata-enriched version of the publicly available Hansard Corpus optimized for computational social science research, with 6.7 million speeches across 1.2 million debates, with 89% gender-matching for speeches by MPs from the House of Commons. We find that 54% of speeches opposing women's representation contain sexist content, compared to 21% of speeches that are for the cause, and that the two sides use fundamentally different types of sexism: anti-suffrage rhetoric combines hostile and benevolent framing, while pro-suffrage sexism is overwhelmingly benevolent. Female MPs support women's political rights at 93% compared to 70% for male MPs, a gap that closes only after enfranchisement. Our findings are evidence that benevolent and hostile sexism are used in different rhetorical contexts in a manner consistent with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.

You Talkin to Me?: A Network Analysis of Gendered Speaker-Addressee Patterns in Film Screenplays

Objective: This paper investigates the gendered structure of speaker addressee relationships in film dialogue, asking not merely who speaks, but who is spoken to and how conversational dynamics unfold across gender lines. Methods: Using a manually annotated dataset of 4,600 directed dialogue events from 38 film screenplays, we apply network analysis, chi squared tests, paired statistical comparisons, and participation shift analysis across three studies. Key Findings: Male characters dominate as both speakers and addressees corpus wide, even in scenes with more women; cross gender dialogue is directionally symmetric on average but clustered at the film level; and same gender turns diffuse conversational attention while cross gender turns produce tighter dyadic reciprocation. Conclusion: Gender bias in film dialogue operates through the architecture of conversation itself, through exclusion from interaction and structural positioning as addressees, rather than through speaking time or within conversation directional imbalance alone.

Sexualised synthetic personas encode and amplify gendered power asymmetries through voice

This work examines sexualised AI-generated English-speaking voices offered by a popular commercial platform. New technologies may enable sexual empowerment and greater diversity in gender expression, yet toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, and the abuse of women and LGBTQ+ people remain pervasive online. Drawing on a Feminist HCI perspective, we examine how commercial voice AI systems reproduce and circulate particular performances of gender. We conducted a listening experiment with a diverse group of listeners, combining quantitative adjective selection, qualitative free-text responses, and acoustic analysis. Participants evaluated male- and female-coded voices presented with either sexualised scripts or neutral text. Results reveal a narrow range of gender expression, largely binary and heteronormative. Female-coded voices are more frequently described using sexualised and submissive terms, while male-coded voices are more often associated with dominance and positive traits.

Gender Bias in LLM Hiring Decisions: Evidence from a Japanese Context and Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in hiring workflows, yet most research on gender bias in LLM hiring decisions has focused on English-language, Western-format resumes. This study examines whether pro-female gender bias extends to a Japanese corporate context and evaluates two practical mitigation strategies. Using a counterfactual resume design with 60 Japanese rirekisho-format resumes, 12 name pairs selected on linguistically grounded gender-signal criteria, and five state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 3.3 70B), we conducted 43,200 API calls across baseline, prompt instruction, and privacy filter conditions. A crossed random-effects linear mixed model confirms a significant pro-female bias across all five models, replicating Western findings in a non-Western context. A prompt-level gender-neutrality instruction produces no meaningful reduction in bias. A name-reliance analysis formally identifies the candidate name as the primary gender channel: removing the name from the prompt reduces the female effect by nearly its full magnitude. An unexpected incompatibility between the privacy filter and GPT-4o's content safety filter, resulting in a 42% refusal rate, highlights a practical deployment challenge for name anonymization in LLM-assisted recruitment pipelines.

Contaminated Collaboration: Measuring Gender Bias Transfer in LLM-Assisted Student Writing

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

I Was Scrolling and Then I Saw a Pregnant Strawberry

AI minidramas (also known as fruit dramas) are short, algorithmically distributed generative AI video series featuring anthropomorphized characters that have recently emerged as a widespread phenomenon on social media platforms. This paper argues that despite their seemingly innocuous aesthetic, these videos reproduce deeply gendered narrative structures in which female characters are systematically associated with moral transgression, sexual betrayal, and reproductive capacity, and that several plots also encode the logic of racialization, i.e., the process by which visible bodily difference is morally loaded. Drawing on feminist film theory, critical race theory, and platform studies, it further argues that the generative AI aesthetic of these videos, characterized by softness, roundness, and visual cuteness, functions as a mechanism of aesthetic laundering, neutralizing the ideological weight of these narratives and enabling their circulation despite content moderation systems. This paper approaches these questions through personal observation and close reading, reflecting on the specific affordances of generative AI that make this phenomenon both possible and culturally consequential for the field of computational creativity.

Neutrality Bites: Gender Representation in AI-Generated Animal Stories

Gender bias in AI-generated stories is a well-documented problem. While much attention has been paid to reducing or mitigating this bias, it is not always clear whether interventions produce genuinely fairer results. To investigate this issue, we examine how large language models (LLMs) handle gender assignment in a narrative context that is popular, highly ambiguous, and also known to closely reproduce human stereotypes: stories about talking animals. We prompt six leading LLMs to complete an English-language story about seven different anthropomorphic animal characters whose gender is unstated. We additionally iterate with four different narrative settings and a range of model temperatures. Across the 23.8K stories, we find that models frequently avoid gendering the animal character in the story (19% on average) or use gender-neutral language like "it" or "its" (38.2% on average). However, when gender is assigned, there is a significant masculine bias. Feminine animal characters are virtually absent, present in just 2.2% of stories vs. 40.6% that feature masculine characters. Our findings point to a broader argument: neutrality bites. In other words, models that prioritize neutrality to address social bias may actually contribute to the erasure of marginalized perspectives and identities. We suggest that alternative strategies beyond neutrality need to be pursued, such as ones that more equally distribute social possibilities across imagined subjects.