NaibofTabr

Oh, of course, all is in jest - or at least, in the theater of the mind.

But what I’m trying to get at is that either:

A) The robot is not self-aware, or emotionally aware, and therefore being “gay” or whatever is merely performative, an affectation that you, the owner, have applied to it as you might apply a new color of paint to a wall. In this case, the robot’s apparent gender or sexuality is functionally meaningless, as it has no decision-making capability of its own and no emotional involvement. It is a toaster.

or

B) The robot is self-aware, and emotionally aware, and therefore its capacity for a relationship (gay or otherwise) and gender presentation is very meaningful (it is an intelligent being with independent thoughts and desires). In this case, if you “own” it, and you are making gender presentation choices for it, then there are some very serious ethical concerns.

Hmm, if it is something that you own, then it is not someone (not a person, artificial or otherwise) and therefore it’s basically an appliance.

Who cares how a toaster presents itself in terms of gender and/or sexuality?

Oui.

Wait, is 3 Stooges a gender now?

Both, I guess.

Who’s “we”?

I would argue that in order for a robot to be “gay” it must be capable of forming emotional bonds in fact, and not just play-acting at emotions due to programming, and therefore must be more than a simple “device”.

You would forcibly gender a being that is inherently asexual? One that would have no choice in the matter?