#11 - Sexbots vs. Pregnant AI Politicians

Hello and welcome to the Spaghetti Junction in my brain. In this episode, I discuss the origin of my most recent article, "I-AI-Woman-Womb”. From concerns over the normalisation of sexual violence via sexbots, to insights from Donna Haraway’s ‘Cyborg Manifesto’ which shows technology as a great equaliser, to the curious case in September 2025 of a ‘pregnant’ AI minister in Albania, I expand on the themes explored in the piece—touching on gendered AI coding, the ethics of anthropomorphising AI, and how historical dynamics are already shaping an unforeseeable future. Lets jump in.This interest started after I watched a YouTube discussion on the economy, AI and ethics. The conversation was packed with information—ninety dense minutes that I had to pause and return to several times. Toward the end, the host made a comment that stayed with me: that AI is gendered, and “him and her” exist in the AI space too. She was bringing up concerns about violence against women, especially sexual violence, as men grow more accustomed to robotic sex companions. With technologies like sex dolls, there’s no ethical responsibility for the robot’s well-being and of course people can do whatever they want to a thing if it’s their own propety. As we’ve seen in other areas, like the prevalence of violent pornography and the correlated increase in things like choking and spitting during sex, which many women who do not desire such play have been subjected to by male partners without warning or consent. Such behaviours can bleed into real relationships and shift expectations of what is considered ‘normal’.There are many sides to the AI industry, but the area of anthropomorphic robots—giving machines human qualities—is obviously a huge and growing field. As we make technology more human, certain gender stereotypes clearly appear and there is valid concern that these technological shifts might have serious safety implications for women.What the host of the youtube discussion said made me think of Donna Haraway, a biologist and philosopher, who is very much still active today. In 1985, Haraway published an essay called “A Cyborg Manifesto.” The essay is dated now—technology and cultural concepts have changed dramatically—and she’s been criticized for not being more intersectional in her feminist perspective, which could reflect the times it was written in. Still, the essay contains powerful insights. When I first read it, my perspective changed on a number of things relating to woman and machine.Haraway’s approach was to frame the cyborg as a tool for feminist progress, offering the possibility of real equality through new technologies—birth control, in utero screening, IVF—tools that helped women break free from certain biological limitations and social narratives about what a woman is or can do.I’m not a feminist scholar, and I don’t claim expertise in this area, but hearing the podcast host mention “his and hers” in AI brought Haraway’s argument about technology as an equalizer to mind. Thinking about that made me realize how sharply it contrasts with what’s happening today. It made me reevaluate Haraway’s perspective: seeing technology as an equalizing force doesn’t seem accurate anymore. It’s important to recognize that female robots, no matter how lifelike, will never be what human women are. That thought sent me back into brainstorming and writing, trying to untangle these concepts and refine my perspective. It’s complicated territory. Lately, I’ve also been writing about AI and music, drawing from my experience as an artist. But it’s not just about my creativity or musicality in opposition to AI; it’s about our physical existence, especially for women, as technology advances. It’s about how our bodies function, or don’t, and everything that gets left out when we are rendered—willingly or not—as disembodied technological counterparts.Here’s an example I included in my article: In September, Albania’s Prime Minister appointed an AI minister. The AI minister given a woman’s name, and even announced to be “pregnant” with eighty-three “baby AI minister bots.” Using women’s biological functions this way in politics and governance is presented as progressive, but in reality, we’re nowhere near equality in politics worldwide. Installing an AI presented as a ‘pregnant’ woman, who’ll never need maternity leave or workplace accommodations, highlights how the virtues of this type of womanhood are welcomed in politics when it suits a surface level narrative, yet the uphill battle faced by women navigating pregnancy in real life professional and political situations remains unaddressed.This brings to mind a story from a good friend of mine, a civil engineer. She was the only woman in her university course when she was studying twenty odd years ago. She recently worked on a major city project in Dublin and there were no sanitary bins on site in any of the toilet facilities. It took months to raise the issue and get it addressed, simply to have basic sanitary needs met. Women ‘robots’ won’t require these types of ‘accommodations’.All of this is striking. As technology advances, we’ll see more of these issues surface and be debated, but there’s also a risk that some concerns get brushed aside—especially if women are increasingly represented as purely disembodied, service-oriented forms.That’s it for today. I’ll be back soon with section breakdowns in another episode. Until then: put humans first. Don’t feed the machines. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit laurasheeran.substack.com/subscribe