Abstract
The rapid integration of language technologies into translation and interpreting workflows has transformed professional practice, but not without controversy. As machine translation (MT), remote interpreting platforms, and AI-assisted tools become increasingly commonplace, concerns have grown about how these systems embed and amplify existing social inequalities. Biases in training data, design choices, and regulatory gaps all contribute to the marginalisation of particular groups, from women and LGBTIQ+ professionals to speakers of low-resource languages. These challenges are not merely technical but deeply political, raising questions about whose voices are represented, whose identities are respected, and whose labour is valued in an increasingly automated language industry. Gendered Technology in Translation and Interpreting: Centering Rights in the Development of Language Technology enters this debate with a timely, interdisciplinary perspective, examining how gendered power dynamics intersect with the design, regulation, and everyday use of language technologies.
Framed by this critical context, the volume is organised into three parts that move from conceptual and legal foundations to empirical analyses of interpreting and translation technologies. Each section brings together diverse methodological and theoretical approaches, reflecting the editors’ intention to bridge disciplinary boundaries while maintaining a sharp focus on rights, equity, and inclusivity. The structure enables readers to follow a clear trajectory, from understanding the systemic roots of gender bias to seeing how it plays out in professional practice, and finally to considering its sociotechnical implications.
Part I offers an excellent introduction to the study of disparities in language technology, laying the conceptual and legal groundwork for the volume. It situates translation and interpreting technologies within broader socio-political systems, highlighting how gender bias is embedded in technological design and governance. Through legal and policy analysis, the editors outline how different regulatory models address (or fail to address) linguistic and gender inequalities, framing the stakes for the chapters that follow.
In Chapter 1, The Omnirelevance of Gendered Technology: Translation, Interpreting, and the Law, the editors argue that technology development is deeply embedded in cultural norms, particularly emphasising how a field shaped by heteronormative, male-dominated values runs the risk of perpetuating biases when applied to feminised professions like translation and interpreting.
Building on this, in Chapter 2, The Legal Rationales of the Leading Technological Models: The Challenges of Regulating Linguistic and Gender Biases, Tasa-Fuster scrutinises prevailing technological models: the US capitalist surveillance framework, the techno-governance in China, and the EU’s rights-based regulatory approach. The chapter unpacks how existing legal rationales struggle to address and regulate entrenched linguistic and gender biases, identifying key gaps in current legal frameworks when applied to emergent language technologies.
Part II turns to interpreting, examining how gendered assumptions and practices are embedded in both traditional and remote interpreting environments. Drawing on feminist, posthumanist, and sociological perspectives, these chapters explore how digital platforms, booth configurations, and work arrangements shape the visibility, autonomy, and well-being of interpreters (especially those from LGBTIQ+ and other marginalised groups). Empirical studies provide firsthand insights into how these technologies affect professional practice and identity. Given that this review appears in Interpreting and Society, particular attention will be devoted to this section, while Part III—though highly relevant to debates on MT—will be treated more briefly.
In Chapter 3, Deconstructing the En-Gendering Binary Mechanisms of Interpreting Technologies: A Posthumanist Feminist Inquiry, Deborah Giustini employs a posthumanist feminist inquiry to meticulously deconstruct how interpreting technologies, often perceived as neutral tools, can subtly reinforce or perpetuate gender binaries. It critically examines the underlying assumptions, design choices, and implicit biases embedded within these technological tools that shape gendered interactions and perceptions in interpreting practice.
Giustini’s use of a “posthumanist feminist inquiry” is a significant theoretical contribution, moving beyond anthropocentric views to analyse the agency of technology itself in shaping gender. This approach enables a deeper understanding of how gender is not merely reflected but actively “en-gendered” by technological systems, underscoring the need for critical design principles. Giustini’s posthumanist feminist inquiry suggests that technology functions not as a passive tool but as an active participant in shaping and reinforcing gender roles and assumptions. This implies that the biases are not solely in the data but are deeply embedded in the very architecture and interaction design of the technology, leading to a more profound and systemic perpetuation of gender norms. This perspective challenges simplistic notions of “fixing” bias through data alone. Furthermore, the observation that societies are biased to interpret technology as rational and rationality as male establishes a powerful causal link. This indicates that societal gender biases directly influence how technology is conceived and developed, resulting in gendered designs and outcomes.
Chapter 4, Remote Interpreting and the Politics of Diversity: The Lived Experiences of LGBTIQ+ Interpreters in International Organisations, by Esther Monzó-Nebot focuses on the intersection of remote interpreting technologies and the professional identities of LGBTIQ+ interpreters. Drawing on a cross-national study with qualitative interviews and firsthand accounts, the chapter foregrounds how digital platforms mediate not only working conditions but also the visibility and recognition of marginalised identities within institutional contexts. Monzó-Nebot shows that, while remote modalities can create safer and more flexible spaces for some interpreters, they can also reinforce invisibility by stripping away opportunities for informal networking, solidarity-building, and visibility that physical conferences sometimes provide. The chapter highlights tensions between the promise of technological neutrality and the persistence of institutional hierarchies that marginalise interpreters who do not conform to heteronormative expectations.
Importantly, Monzó-Nebot situates these experiences within the broader political economy of interpreting, noting that LGBTIQ+ interpreters often occupy precarious professional positions that make negotiating technological barriers more challenging. The analysis makes clear that technologies are never neutral: they embody the values and assumptions of the institutions that adopt them, with remote platforms often privileging efficiency and cost over inclusivity. The chapter also underscores the emotional labour required of interpreters navigating dual pressures of professional performance and identity management in environments where diversity is not always institutionally supported.
Özüm Arzik-Erzurumlu’s Chapter 6, Gendered Approaches to Remote Interpreting: A Booth of One’s Own, discusses the evolving nature of the interpreting profession, arguing that recent technological shifts are reshaping it along distinct gendered lines. The chapter begins by contextualising the historical trajectory of conference interpreting, noting how it was framed as a typically female profession. It also posits that the adoption of remote interpreting, particularly accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, marks a pivotal change in the profession’s history.
The core of Arzik-Erzurumlu’s work is an empirical investigation into the lived experiences of interpreters navigating this new professional landscape. Drawing on interviews conducted with 23 interpreters trained or practising in Turkey, the study uncovers a nuanced relationship between interpreters’ engagement with remote settings and their gender, as well as their marital and family statuses. The findings reveal significant variations in the perspectives of men and women regarding remote interpreting, suggesting that the seemingly neutral space of the home office is, in fact, deeply personal and gendered. The research further illustrates that even among women, those with different marital and family statuses hold divergent viewpoints on the practice, highlighting the complex intersection of personal life and professional labour. By using the metaphor of “a booth of one’s own,” the chapter explores how the intimate space of the home becomes a public professional sphere with gendered implications. The study ultimately posits that remote interpreting provides a compelling rationale for understanding technology not as a neutral tool, but as something that is approached and experienced through a distinctly gendered lens.
Part III addresses MT and related AI technologies, assessing the persistence of gender bias across languages, genres, and platforms. Contributions range from evaluations of gender fairness in specific language pairs to analyses of bias in legal translation and low-resource language contexts. Together, these chapters underscore the risks posed by automated systems that replicate or amplify structural inequalities, while calling for more inclusive, rights-based technological development.
Chapter 7, The Role of Human Translators in the Human-Machine Era: Assessing Gender-Neutrality in Galician Machine and Human Translation, by García González analyses eight Galician mobile applications and finds that most use masculine defaults, misgendering female and non-binary users. The author then compares five MT systems with 53 translation students using test sentences and a gender-neutral story. Both groups largely failed to preserve gender neutrality, defaulting to masculine forms for neutral terms and showing stereotypical associations (e.g., “nurse” as feminine). Translation students performed similarly to MT systems regardless of their gender identity or academic level. The study concludes that gender fairness needs better integration in translation curricula and calls for increased collaboration between MT research and translation studies to address these biases in both human and automated translation.
Chapter 8, Gender Bias in Machine Translation and the Era of Large Language Models, by Vanmassenhove investigates how MT systems perpetuate and even amplify gender bias. It highlights that these biases arise from imbalanced datasets, statistical preferences, and entrenched stereotypes, which together lead to systematic male defaults and exclusion of gender-fair forms. Vanmassenhove then presents a case study of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) in English–Italian translation, demonstrating that the model often defaults to masculine forms, omits feminine and gender-fair alternatives, and introduces errors even when explicitly prompted for balanced outputs. These findings suggest that language models show a strong male bias. The chapter concludes with a call for hybrid approaches that integrate linguistic knowledge into neural systems and for closer collaboration among linguists, computer scientists, ethicists, and sociologists.
Chapter 9, Gender Bias and Women’s Rights in the Workplace: The Potential Impact of English–German Translation Tools, by Đorđević, examines gender bias in English-German translation tools and their impact on workplace gender equality. The study analyses four major translation technologies, that is, Google Translate, ChatGPT, IATE, and Linguee, by testing translations of 50 common job titles. Results reveal systematic bias towards masculine forms: Google Translate and IATE predominantly provided male forms, ChatGPT offered both genders but prioritised masculine forms, and Linguee showed mixed results with male forms typically listed first. The findings highlight a contradiction between the European Union’s gender equality policies and the performance of translation tools used in professional settings, demonstrating how seemingly neutral technologies perpetuate discrimination by normalising male-centred language in job advertisements.
Chapter 10, Exploring Gender Bias in Machine Translation of Legal Texts, by Rico Pérez and Martínez Pleguezuelos examines how translation technologies reproduce and reinforce gender inequalities in legal discourse. The authors begin by situating MT within the broader risks of algorithmic bias, noting how data and algorithms embody structural inequalities that can invisibly shape social realities. Drawing on previous scholarship, the chapter shows that MT often defaults to masculine forms in English–Spanish translations, erases gender-specific cues, or reinforces stereotypical associations between professions and gender. To illustrate this, the authors test four leading systems (DeepL, Google Translate, ChatGPT-3, and the EU’s eTranslator) across three scenarios: texts with no gender markers, texts with explicit pronouns, and texts with contextual indicators. The results reveal persistent masculine-default translations, limited binary alternatives, and frequent failures to capture contextual gender references, with significant implications for legal accuracy and social justice.
Chapter 11, Misgendering and Assuming Gender in Machine Translation when Working with Low-Resource Languages, by Ghosh and Chatterjee reviews the sociotechnical implications of MT systems, particularly in the context of gender biases and errors when translating between high- and low-resource languages, with a focus on Bengali. The authors highlight how MT systems often misinterpret gender-neutral pronouns in Bengali, introducing binary gender assumptions in English translations, which perpetuates stereotypes and causes representational harms. They argue that these issues are rooted in colonial histories, linguistic hierarchies, and biases embedded in training datasets. The chapter emphasises the broader sociocultural consequences of such errors, including the erasure of non-binary identities and the homogenisation of diverse linguistic structures. To address these challenges, the authors advocate for mindful data collection, active engagement with local communities, and interdisciplinary research approaches. They stress the importance of centring the voices of first-language speakers and marginalised communities to create more inclusive and accurate MT systems. The chapter concludes by calling for collaborative efforts to preserve linguistic diversity and mitigate the harms caused by biased language technologies.
The volume editors finally summarise the content of the 11 contributions in a conclusive chapter, The Tech Landscape in Translation and Interpreting: Gender Inequalities, Language Hierarchies, and the Call for a Level Playing Field, also providing an overview of open questions that research ought to explore in the future.
One of the great strengths of the volume lies in its interdisciplinarity and theoretical depth. By combining feminist theory, posthumanist perspectives, legal analysis, and empirical case studies, the editors have curated a collection that is both conceptually rich and practically relevant. The range of bibliographical sources is particularly impressive, offering a valuable resource for scholars across disciplines. At the same time, the book is less strong in empirical grounding. Much of the evidence is presented selectively or anecdotally, often illustrating theoretical arguments rather than systematically substantiating them. Readers interested in large-scale studies or quantifiable data may therefore find the findings less robust than the theoretical discussions. A further limitation lies in the framing of the volume. While its title promises to “center rights in the development of language technology,” relatively little space is devoted to processes of technological design or co-creation with developers. Instead, the majority of chapters focus on institutional, professional, and legal contexts of technology use, showing convincingly how technologies exacerbate existing gender bias but offering fewer insights into how development processes might themselves be transformed. This emphasis reflects the disciplinary orientation of the contributors but leaves a gap for future research, particularly in collaboration with computer scientists and developers. In short, the book excels in mapping the cultural, political, and institutional dimensions of gendered technology, while leaving open the challenge of how to translate critique into concrete interventions at the design stage.
Gendered Technology in Translation and Interpreting is a timely and thought-provoking contribution that deepens our understanding of how gender, rights, and technology intersect in the fields of translation and interpreting. While its emphasis lies more on theorising and critiquing institutional and legal frameworks than on providing extensive empirical evidence or design-focused perspectives, the volume nevertheless succeeds in mapping the contours of a pressing debate. Its interdisciplinarity, bibliographic depth, and critical stance make it an important resource for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike. If some readers may wish for a closer engagement with developers or more systematic empirical studies, these gaps point not to shortcomings but to opportunities for future research and cross-disciplinary collaboration. As such, the book should be read not only as a critique of current practices but also as a call to action, urging the profession and the wider research community to push for more inclusive, rights-based approaches in the creation and use of language technologies.
