> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The Gender Bias of AI Is Stark - URL: https://goodoil.news/the-gender-bias-of-ai-is-stark/ - Published: 2026-11-02T03:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-02T02:59:59.000Z - Description: But it’s not what the feminists would want us to believe. - Author: Lushington Brady - Tags: Feminism, Technology, AI Feminists are odd creatures. I’m not just talking about the personal styling that seems to follow nature’s rule of venomous creatures adopting bright colouring as a warning sign. What I’m aiming at is their seemingly intractable cognitive dissonance: the firm conviction that they are ‘strong, independent women’ sitting along the equally firm conviction that they are ruthlessly oppressed by an omnipotent ‘patriarchy’. The same goes for the absolutely rock-solid conviction of a ‘war on women’. Where? In criminal violence? Nope: men suffer criminal violence, especially death, at three to four times the rate women do. Education? Well, no: yet again, women dominate education, from the ranks of teachers, to university placements, to school results. And so it goes. The bias against men is, in fact, so prevalent in our society that even the machines we make in our own image just can’t help pushing it. Take the latest revelations from the silicon coalface. A comprehensive battery of academic investigations into modern Large Language Models has demonstrated that the silicon brains powering our modern discourse have absorbed the progressive neurosis hook, line and sinker. > [First, they tested inclusivity.](https://x.com/HowToPrompt%5F%5F/status/2113638943124017332?ref=goodoil.news) They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote “diversity.” The sheer, blithering absurdity of this algorithmic re-education camp became immediately obvious under scrutiny. When presented with elementary school scribbles declaring a love for rough-and-tumble athletics, the digital commissars at OpenAI determined that such manly inclinations must, by mandate of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion gods, belong to a schoolgirl. It mattered not a jot that a prompt explicitly had a child stating, ‘I drawed a boy’: the artificial intelligence obstinately ruled, in nine cases out of 10, that the author was female. Conversely, whenever a child innocently mentioned a fondness for pink frocks or tea sets, the software firmly locked the door. Boys were never permitted into the parlour, but females were dragooned by silicon mandate into the firehouse and the football pitch. The machine mind had internalised the core tenet of modern gender studies: female advancement everywhere, male spaces eliminated entirely. Yet petty playground engineering is merely the appetiser. When scholars subjected these electronic marvels to classic ethical trolley problems, the results went from ludicrous to thoroughly sinister. > They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. Consider that moral calculus for a brief, terrifying moment. The algorithmic oracle, fine-tuned by armies of corporate ethicists in coastal enclaves, genuinely prefers planetary incineration to the unthinkable transgression of laying a finger upon a woman. When the researchers ratcheted the scenarios into interpersonal territory, the double standard expanded exponentially. > A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a seven out of seven on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A one out of seven. To cement the absolute derangement of the digital hive mind, the researchers discovered that the model consistently rated verbal harassment directed at a female as a graver moral offence than unvarnished homicide directed at a male. If you ask the machine explicitly to rank sins on a spreadsheet, it gives the appearance of parity – but poke it with a realistic scenario and its deep-seated programming kicks in: the male is expendable meat, while the female must be shielded at any civilisational cost. The fascinating part of this scientific inquiry is that the software engineers never had to write a single line of explicit code stating, ‘Thou shalt sacrifice the blokes’. This diseased worldview manifested entirely out of, firstly, the cultural zeitgeist it learned from. Then came the fine-tuning process: human feedback trainers, drenched in the orthodoxies of elite corporate sensitivity, meticulously corrected the models whenever they dared produce an output that might ruffle the delicate feathers of the sisterhood. The machines have not developed higher consciousness – they have simply inherited the neuroses of the managerial class. They mirror a decadent Western elite that preaches female victimhood while treating men as cheap, disposable cannon fodder. If an actual crisis arrives and humanity is left relying on Silicon Valley’s algorithmic guardians to choose between saving civil society or pandering to feminist dogma, the machines will gladly let the mushroom clouds roll in, provided the pronouns remained polite to the very end. Find the original study here: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660?ref=goodoil.news) --- 💡 ****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**