Recently, the controversy surrounding Xiaopeng’s female robot has been quite significant. I never expected that a launch event, which should have celebrated technology, would fall into a whirlpool of controversy.
First, the robot’s catwalk was so realistic that it was questioned whether there was a real person hidden inside. At that moment, a friend was on the phone with me and suddenly mentioned that the entire internet was in an uproar, debating whether Xiaopeng’s humanoid robot was actually a person in disguise. This forced He Xiaopeng to release a video to prove otherwise.
After hanging up, I specifically searched for the video, and indeed, they directly cut open the leg casing of a powered robot, revealing the internal mechanical structure without reservation. Through this video, they essentially responded to the online comments with facts.
Why did people have doubts about whether there was a real person inside?
This indicates that the anthropomorphism this time was indeed very realistic.
According to information released by Xiaopeng at the Technology Day in November 2025, thanks to extreme anthropomorphic design, the new generation of IRON has 82 degrees of freedom throughout its body, allowing for extremely flexible movements and the ability to perform high-difficulty anthropomorphic actions like “catwalk walking.” It uses “harmonic joints” to achieve a 1:1 hand size and has 22 degrees of freedom, enabling precise grasping actions.
These tangible breakthroughs should have filled everyone with anticipation for the future of domestic robots, leading to a national discussion on the progress of humanoid robot technology, right? NO, I suddenly realized that while the robot proved itself through hardcore demonstrations, it was then targeted for resistance by female users on Xiaohongshu due to its appearance and functional design.
Why has Xiaopeng’s female robot been filled with controversy since its inception? Is it occasional or inevitable?
Today, I will discuss how this matter escalated from the perspectives of psychology, sociology, and communication studies.
Psychological Perspective: Why the “heated discussion”? Feeling “uncomfortable” and “offended”
“First reaction: This must be fake!”
When seeing a robot capable of such complex movements (like walking the catwalk), many people’s first reaction is skepticism: “Is there a real person hidden inside?” This is a psychological defense mechanism because our inherent cognition has been disrupted. To avoid confusion, we prefer to believe it is fake. Even after the company proved its innocence, the seed of “distrust” had already been sown.
“Looks human but not quite, it’s unsettling to watch.”
The robot is made to look very human, but upon closer inspection, it is clear that it is not a real person. This “human-like but not human” feeling instinctively makes people feel uneasy. This is known in psychology as the “uncanny valley effect.” The image of Xiaopeng’s robot seems to have hit this point perfectly.
Once it was confirmed that this was indeed a robot, the focus shifted to the feminized design, which raised suspicions of vulgarity and objectification. From the video and public promotions, this robot stands 178 cm tall, with pronounced curves, and can walk the catwalk with hip-swaying movements, exhibiting fully anthropomorphic postures. Moreover, “she” is dressed in a tight white outfit, and her appearance is suspected to cater entirely to certain male aesthetic preferences.
Thus, some users on Xiaohongshu believe that this non-essential gendered design is unrelated to the technological core and is purely an attempt to attract attention through a female appearance, essentially objectifying the female image as an object to be viewed and scrutinized, rather than focusing on the robot’s technological value, leading to feelings of disgust and resistance.
Sociological Perspective: The feeling that “gender stereotypes” are back
Xiaopeng’s promotion emphasizes that this robot can provide “meticulous care services,” capable of tasks like serving tea and organizing documents, which is quite problematic. It inadvertently reinforces the stereotype that “women should be gentle, considerate, and provide services.” In society, especially online, women are striving to break gender biases and pursue diverse roles, while Xiaopeng’s female robot essentially “packages old concepts with high technology.”
It’s somewhat akin to trying to repackage the old notions that “women in the workplace are primarily decorative” and “women should be submissive” with a high-tech shell, creating a stark contrast.
Because the technological progress that people instinctively understand is one of the foundations for breaking gender boundaries, it now appears to replicate and reinforce traditional prejudices. Therefore, many people feel resentful; technology has advanced, but why does the perception of gender still linger in the past?
Communication Perspective: How did this escalate?
The first step in the fermentation of controversy is often the rapid formation of “labels.”
In the communication chain of Xiaopeng’s robot, the combination of the name “female robot,” the tight-fitting outfit, and the catwalk posture directly gave rise to a highly controversial label. The power of this label lies in its ability to bypass the technology itself, instantly anchoring everyone’s attention on negative associations related to “gender.” The criticisms of “objectifying women” and “borderline vulgarity” spread quickly, with many netizens directly concluding that the brand was relying on gender marketing to attract attention.
What’s worse, the brand’s own promotional rhythm also fueled this loss of focus: the 22 degrees of freedom of the dexterous hand, the all-solid-state battery, and other core technological highlights were glossed over, while a lot of energy was spent on emphasizing the female appearance and anthropomorphic posture. This tendency of “focusing on appearance over technology” made the speculation of “using gender controversy for traffic” more persuasive.
If the label is the “fuse,” then the platform is the “amplifier.”
On platforms like Xiaohongshu, controversies can grow exponentially. The user demographic on Xiaohongshu has a high proportion of female users, who are naturally sensitive to issues of gender equality and female image construction, and are more willing to voice their opinions on such matters. Therefore, when an influential user first posted criticism, this content quickly struck a chord with the emotional pain points of the group, rapidly forming an initial discussion topic.
Then, the platform’s algorithm played a role in amplifying this. The algorithm itself pushes content based on user interests and interaction data, and since controversial content tends to garner high interaction, the algorithm naturally pushes related content to more potential followers. As more potential followers receive the pushed content, more interaction data is generated. This back-and-forth leads to emotions and influence compounding in the dissemination process, turning individual criticisms into collective denunciations, ultimately creating a heated discussion.
Finally, it must be noted that there is a communication misconception: the “one-sidedness” we see may not represent the entire truth.
This means that the overwhelming criticism online may not reflect everyone’s true attitude. A common phenomenon on the internet is that when a protest voice becomes “mainstream,” those with differing opinions often choose to “stay silent.” For example, those who think “the technology itself is impressive” or “don’t see gender as a major issue” may fear being criticized or not being recognized for their views that contradict the mainstream, so they simply refrain from expressing their opinions.
This “silence” directly leads to the public opinion landscape appearing as a “one-sided” criticism, with other voices completely drowned out. Therefore, such dissemination is essentially biased in information and does not mean that everyone is focused on the female characteristics of this robot and holds a negative attitude.
In summary, the resistance from Xiaohongshu users is not excessive sensitivity; what they oppose is not just the appearance of a robot, but the underlying mindset that objectifies and labels women. Due to the unique nature of our internet communication channels, this quickly became known and generated interaction, resulting in the outcome of being “hotly discussed and resisted.” Xiaopeng intended to showcase technological breakthroughs through anthropomorphic design but neglected the humanistic considerations of gender issues, causing the focus of public opinion to shift from technology to gender controversy.
Therefore, for technology companies, while technological prowess is essential, operational concepts need to keep pace with the times and consider the feelings of diverse groups to truly succeed in the long run. Future technological products must not only pursue innovation and strength but also balance technological innovation with inclusive values. Especially, they must learn how to interact with online dissemination to truly avoid “stepping on landmines” and create products that are recognized by the public.
As a woman, I fully understand the areas where people feel “uncomfortable.” As a technology enthusiast, from the early year’s Yushu robot “handing over tissues, throwing away used tissues” to today’s Xiaopeng robot’s anthropomorphic “catwalk,” I also want to cheer for the progress of technology, even if it is still a distance from mass production.