Re: Dr Kate Devlin
You mean like:
Not acknowledging that dildos come in very phalic shapes and sizes, from human to animal including horse? That there are an incredible array of sex toys for women, but not for men. You know, like men don't have urges but women do?
Not acknowledging that there are already robotic sex machines for women or that the sexdroid (female) that caused an outcry was advertised along side the male version, which went without comment?
Not acknowledging that the dildo was the first practical occurance of sexual objectification by reducing male sex to an object a woman can carry in her handbag? That a study into the impact of the introduction of the dildo on society would show if such things do, indeed, cause problems in society and if so, what the dangers are?
Of referring to AI robots in human form instead of androids (aka robots limited to human form). This is a simple trick to invoke horror and opposition: Androids might be seen as okay, but robots? No way! Way too mechanical and nothing like being with a person!
Of claiming that technology is mostly by men for men, forgetting that household appliances (aka technology) were designed to make women's lives easier (you know: Washing machines, tumbledryers, vaccume cleaners, dishwashers...). Tech in industry displaces workers to make production cheaper, not to advantage men, so she's either dishonest or ignorant there.
Oh, and the list goes on...
So yes, some sort of agenda.