Papa
Banned
Well I am glad you find it funny.
Your hysteria is funnier than the story, to be honest.
Well I am glad you find it funny.
Interesting to say at least, it is kind of funny that he was able to do it and would commit to it just to save some money on car insurance.
I see Nobody_Important point of view about how this could potentially damage those that do not feel like their own gender, who aren’t out to take advantage or cheat the system. I think those who really believe they aren’t the gender that they were born with should have that right. I wonder how common this is?
It is a generalization and therefore discrimination. I am sorry but NO.Do tell then. You are saying that Racism, Homophobia and Transphobia has a place in society? That it should be accepted rather than shunned?
Women are safer drivers than men. Thats just facts. Therefore insurance companies make them pay less because they are less of a risk.
Your hysteria is funnier than the story, to be honest.
I can't tell if you are joking or not. Its really hard to tell these days if someone is joking or being serious.It is a generalization and therefore discrimination. You can not do this, Even if this is true.
Do men also pay less health insurance since they are less sick and dying earlier as well?
No I am not joking. And it is discrimination. And if women pay more for health care that is also discrimination. Also I just checked my country and in Germany we have a UNISEX tariff since end of 2012. And this goes for any insurence poilcyI can't tell if you are joking or not. Its really hard to tell these days if someone is joking or being serious.
No. I believe women pay more for health care if I remember correctly.
Do tell then. You are saying that Racism, Homophobia and Transphobia has a place in society? That it should be accepted rather than shunned?
Women are safer drivers than men. Thats just facts. Therefore insurance companies make them pay less because they are less of a risk.
No I am not joking. And it is discrimination. And if women pay more for health care that is also discrimination. Also I just checked my country and in Germany we have a UNISEX tariff since end of 2012. And this goes for any insurence poilcy
What a backwards country I thought Canda was so fucking woke with his hip Trudeau guy?In Canada and the States, auto insurance companies can legally discriminate based on gender and age.
No I am not joking. And it is discrimination. And if women pay more for health care that is also discrimination. Also I just checked my country and in Germany we have a UNISEX tariff since end of 2012. And this goes for any insurence poilcy
I don't think this is derailing the topic because of these discrimination laws the men was "forced" to do this.Wow didn't know that. But yes women pay less than men and the older you get the less you pay. I won't say anymore though because I don't wanna derail the topic.
No I am not joking. And it is discrimination. And if women pay more for health care that is also discrimination. Also I just checked my country and in Germany we have a UNISEX tariff since end of 2012. And this goes for any insurence poilcy
Women are safer drivers than men. Thats just facts. Therefore insurance companies make them pay less because they are less of a risk.
But lets go even further. Men are better in IT then women. So can I only hire men based on this in Canada?
I don't think this is derailing the topic because of these discrimination laws the men was "forced" to do this.
Women are safer drivers than men. Thats just facts. Therefore insurance companies make them pay less because they are less of a risk.
No. I believe that all people have the right to low cost affordable healthcare regardless of age, gender or risk.Which is why you also support lower health care costs for men, or no? Assuming health care isn't free, of course. That's not what I'm asking.
Then we will just have to agree to disagree. It makes perfect sense to me that car insurance companies charge based on risk. If we did away with it then prices would just go up across the board and thats not going to help anyone.
Its not like these companies are gonna make men pay less if they were no longer allowed to do it. They would simply make women pay more. These are companies that exist to make money after all.
I would be completely okay with that. So long as the insurance companies change the rates in a fair way and meet in the middle.If when separating the sexes men have to pay 6000 and women 4000, then really both should pay 5000 if we're not taking sex into account and that's what should be happening for fairness.
OK Black people are statistically pay do not back their debt in America. So can I say that a black person is not allowed to get a credit because of of these facts and based of the risk that they do not get their money back?
So you decide about when it is ok to discriminate people based on facts and based on the risk level?I would be completely okay with that. So long as the insurance companies change the rates in a fair way and meet in the middle.
But lets be real that wouldn't happen. They would simply jack the prices up across the board in order to maximize profit.
No you wouldn't be able to do that.
I am talking about car insurance. My view changes depending on the situation. For example I explained above health insurance should not be treated the same way as car insurance.
So you decide about when it is ok to discriminate people based on facts and based on the risk level?
I think that is a very pro discrminitory view and far from actual equality
I do actually agree with this but I think it's treading a very fine lineMy view changes depending on the situation. For example I explained above health insurance should not be treated the same way as car insurance.
My view changes depending on the situation
Therein lies the problem. Values are unchangeable. You are either for something or against it. Flip-flopping based on different scenarios involving oppression olympics and identity politics means you have no values. If you're for equality and fairness then you need to be for it in all cases, not just ones that suit a particular narrative. People on the far left of the political spectrum reveled at the fact that people who didn't share their world view or who in the past might have made a non-PC statement on social media were being fired but recently this started to happen to some of their people and they now they cry foul saying people shouldn't be fired for such things. Personally I think if you opinions have nothing to do with you doing your job well, then you have no business being fired for them, but I believe it for everyone whether they're on the right or the left politically, I don't change my values.
One moron trying to save money on car insurance does not mean there is a reason to not respect the gender identity that other people choose for themselves.
Not everyone that chooses to change their gender identity is doing so for such ridiculous reasons. Many people are doing so in an effort to feel normal in their own skin. Casting doubt or suspicion on that very serious decision based on a story like this is not only unfair to those who do it for genuine reasons, but it also casts a shadow of needless humor on a very serious topic.
Why is he a moron, please explain.
Not all cases maybe but when it is about race and gender they need to be. You can not discriminate people for something they had no influence in.Agree to disagree then. Not all cases are equal and not all situations are the same. That is too black and white for me.
Not all cases maybe but when it is about race and gender they need to be. You can not discriminate people for something they had no influence in.
I already explained that. Try reading the whole thread before commenting.
No you did not explain why he was a moron.
He did a very rational choice at a low, almost-zero, cost and saved himself 1100$ annually.
I did but it is a very weak argument. "Yeah I wish it would be that way but since it is not lets just leave it at that because it would also hurt the ones not affected by it more"Did you not read what I said above?
If he would not have been discriminate against he would have never done it in the first place. Instead of questioning why he did it you punish this person for doing something which is allowed. Of course people will try to pay less as possible.What he is doing is harmful to people who make the difficult choice to change their gender identity for genuinely important reasons. So either he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions which makes him a moron or he knows and just doesn't care which makes him a shitty person.
Do tell then. You are saying that Racism, Homophobia and Transphobia has a place in society? That it should be accepted rather than shunned?
Women are safer drivers than men. Thats just facts. Therefore insurance companies make them pay less because they are less of a risk.
If they also draw less at box offices, should they receive less pay?
This is just the usual "equality as long as it is good for me".I did but it is a very weak argument. "Yeah I wish it would be that way but since it is not lets just leave it at that because it would also hurt the ones not affected by it more"
Equality is not only a one way road which makes everyone profit from it and in this case mostly women because men never ( try to name ne example were men do) profit from it. To archive equality you have also to lose some like in this case.
If he would not have been discriminate against he would have never done it in the first place. Instead of questioning why he did it you punish this person for doing something which is allowed. Of course people will try to pay less as possible.
Wow didn't know that. But yes women pay less than men and the older you get the less you pay. I won't say anymore though because I don't wanna derail the topic.
Correction statistically FEMALE drivers are safer drivers than MALES. So if one self designates as a female then they must statistically be a safer driver too. Right?
Just trying to understand how these rules work. Would be nice to save $1100 on insurance. After all it’s 2018.
Thats not my view at all. Like I said above in a perfect world I would be fine if insurance companies were to meet in the middle between women and men and charge accordingly, but that wouldn't happen. If a law was made to take away their ability to charge according to risk then they would simply raise the prices across the board rather than any kind of sensible meeting in the middle. That would do far more harm than good. It would be taking money out of the pocket of people everywhere and I am not okay with that no. Especially in the current day and age where every penny counts to a majority of the world.
To put it more clearly. I am not okay with the current system, but its the lesser of two evils so I would rather have it than the other option.
I think it's a pretty debatable argument either way. Is it fair for women to pay more for health insurance, because it costs the insurance company more for their health needs? No. Is it fair to ask men to pay more for insurance despite the cost of their health needs being less than their payments should require? No.
Same thing reversed for driving. If women aren't causing the accidents, why should they pay more? If men don't use as many health services as women, why should they pay more? I think you could make a solid argument for either way of doing things.
Which is why you also support lower health care costs for men, or no? Assuming health care isn't free, of course. That's not what I'm asking.
Insurance is about risk factors of known variables. Getting a job isn't randomized. This would only be a logical conclusion if men and women were hired for their occupation at random, rather than having an education, degree, interview, training program, etc. Insurance, by nature, has to be far more of a statistics game. Casino analogies are usually fitting.
On a serious note though it does show the downside (or upside?) of being able to claim whatever gender one wants. It will be interesting to see if the insurance company turns down a future claim by this guy.
What does gender being binary or not have to do with this? Are you perhaps thinking of social construct? Either way, I'd think that it just comes down to whether this is a discriminator that is important to you and this can or cannot be the case, independent of if it is a social construct or not. Things like being an aristocrate are undeniably nothing but a social construct, yet millions care about that. If you truly mean binary, well, being dead or alive is a binary construct / concept as well and a hell of a lot of people care about being one but not the other.If gender truly is a binary construct ... who cares what he claims to be.
Thats not my view at all. Like I said above in a perfect world I would be fine if insurance companies were to meet in the middle between women and men and charge accordingly, but that wouldn't happen. If a law was made to take away their ability to charge according to risk then they would simply raise the prices across the board rather than any kind of sensible meeting in the middle. That would do far more harm than good. It would be taking money out of the pocket of people everywhere and I am not okay with that no. Especially in the current day and age where every penny counts to a majority of the world.
To put it more clearly. I am not okay with the current system, but its the lesser of two evils so I would rather have it than the other option.
Yes because companies never ever do things that are unethical or illegal in order to increase profit....Sex would just be removed from the risk calculations and the costs would be balanced between the sexes. The insurance companies wouldn’t just arbitrarily adjust the minimum cost up to match the maximum cost as you assert, thereby inventing additional profit out of thin air.
What he is doing is harmful to people who make the difficult choice to change their gender identity for genuinely important reasons. So either he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions which makes him a moron or he knows and just doesn't care which makes him a shitty person.
I explained that on page 1. And before you ask me how its harmful I already explained that as well on page 1. Not a fan of having the same argument twice.
Wow... Nice going Canada! Did they truly think this was a workable solution?If someone who normally identifies as a man says they are a woman whenever they drive, then the insurance company has no right to say otherwise. If there is no way to qualify gender and there are no biological markers to determine gender, then a person's gender (under Canadian law) is whatever they say it is. It can change at any time, and there is no limit to how often it can change.
Under Bill C-16 (which passed last year), it's considered a violation of a person's human rights to deny their gender identity. Insurance companies are allowed to discriminate by gender. (That's why they're legally allowed to charge men more.) They cannot legally distinguish between trans women and women, however. The insurance company has no way to test the legitimacy of a person's gender identity.