Some Myths About Bias: A Queer Studies Reading Of Gender Bias In NLP

This paper critiques common assumptions about gender bias in NLP, focusing primarily on word vector-based methods for detecting and mitigating bias.It argues that these methods assume a kind of "binary thinking" that goes beyond the gender binary toward a conceptual model that structures and limits the effectiveness of these techniques.Drawing its critique from the Humanities field of Queer Studies, this paper demonstrates that binary thinking drives two "myths" in gender bias research: first, that bias is categorical, measuring bias in terms of presence/absence, and second, that it is zero-sum, where the relations between genders are idealized as symmetrical.Due to their use of binary thinking, each of these myths flattens bias into a measure that cannot distinguish between the types of bias and their effects in language.The paper concludes by briefly pointing to methods that resist binary thinking, such as those that diversify and amplify gender expressions. Bias StatementThis paper adopts a framework from Nemani et al. ( 2023) that organizes bias into the categories of "denigration", "underrepresentation", and "stereotype", within the larger category of "representational harms," further elaborated in Section 3. It assumes that bias is inherent to language systems, and it demonstrates how some methods that attempt to excise bias from language focus on a binary structure of thought that miss the opportunity to imagine alternative mitigation strategies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.gebnlp-1.29
Primary Topic
Gender Studies in Language
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Some Myths About Bias: A Queer Studies Reading Of Gender Bias In NLP

F. Calado
1 links
Gender Studies in Language
article

Some Myths About Bias: A Queer Studies Reading Of Gender Bias In NLP

F. Calado
article en

Abstract

This paper critiques common assumptions about gender bias in NLP, focusing primarily on word vector-based methods for detecting and mitigating bias.It argues that these methods assume a kind of "binary thinking" that goes beyond the gender binary toward a conceptual model that structures and limits the effectiveness of these techniques.Drawing its critique from the Humanities field of Queer Studies, this paper demonstrates that binary thinking drives two "myths" in gender bias research: first, that bias is categorical, measuring bias in terms of presence/absence, and second, that it is zero-sum, where the relations between genders are idealized as symmetrical.Due to their use of binary thinking, each of these myths flattens bias into a measure that cannot distinguish between the types of bias and their effects in language.The paper concludes by briefly pointing to methods that resist binary thinking, such as those that diversify and amplify gender expressions. Bias StatementThis paper adopts a framework from Nemani et al. ( 2023) that organizes bias into the categories of "denigration", "underrepresentation", and "stereotype", within the larger category of "representational harms," further elaborated in Section 3. It assumes that bias is inherent to language systems, and it demonstrates how some methods that attempt to excise bias from language focus on a binary structure of thought that miss the opportunity to imagine alternative mitigation strategies.

Pratt Institute (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Gender Studies in Language
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.