Susan Banducci

Aditi Dutta, Susan Banducci, Chico Q. Camargo

Several computational tools have been developed to detect and identify sexism, misogyny, and gender-based hate speech, particularly on online platforms. These tools draw on insights from both social science and computer science. Given the increasing concern over gender-based discrimination in digital spaces, the contested definitions and measurements of sexism, and the rise of interdisciplinary efforts to understand its online manifestations, a systematic literature review is essential for capturing the current state and trajectory of this evolving field. In this review, we make four key contributions: (1) we synthesize the literature into five core themes: definitions of sexism and misogyny, disciplinary divergences, automated detection methods, associated challenges, and design-based interventions; (2) we adopt an interdisciplinary lens, bridging theoretical and methodological divides across disciplines; (3) we highlight critical gaps, including the need for intersectional approaches, the under-representation of non-Western languages and perspectives, and the limited focus on proactive design strategies beyond text classification; and (4) we offer a methodological contribution by applying a rigorous semi-automated systematic review process guided by PRISMA, establishing a replicable standard for future work in this domain. Our findings reveal a clear disciplinary divide in how sexism and misogyny are conceptualized and measured. Through an evidence-based synthesis, we examine how existing studies have attempted to bridge this gap through interdisciplinary collaboration. Drawing on both social science theories and computational modeling practices, we assess the strengths and limitations of current methodologies. Finally, we outline key challenges and future directions for advancing research on the detection and mitigation of online sexism and misogyny.

Aditi Dutta, Susan Banducci

Anti-sexist speech, i.e., public expressions that challenge or resist gendered abuse and sexism, plays a vital role in shaping democratic debate online. Yet automated content moderation systems, increasingly powered by large language models (LLMs), may struggle to distinguish such resistance from the sexism it opposes. This study examines how five LLMs classify sexist, anti-sexist, and neutral political tweets from the UK, focusing on high-salience trigger events involving female Members of Parliament in the year 2022. Our analysis show that models frequently misclassify anti-sexist speech as harmful, particularly during politically charged events where rhetorical styles of harm and resistance converge. These errors risk silencing those who challenge sexism, with disproportionate consequences for marginalised voices. We argue that moderation design must move beyond binary harmful/not-harmful schemas, integrate human-in-the-loop review during sensitive events, and explicitly include counter-speech in training data. By linking feminist scholarship, event-based analysis, and model evaluation, this work highlights the sociotechnical challenges of safeguarding resistance speech in digital political spaces.