Papa
Banned
Your hysteria is funnier than the story, to be honest.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man Changes Gender On Driver’s Liscense for Lower Insurance Rates
- Thread starter Liberty4all
- Start date
Your hysteria is funnier than the story, to be honest.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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 seeNobody_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?
I would assume its rather uncommon otherwise we would hear more about it, but like I said even if its severely uncommon it will still be used as ammunition by people who disagree with the concept of gender identity.
On the surface it seems like a harmless act, but its damage will be subtle and severe if more and more people start to abuse the concept.
Last edited:
It is a generalization and therefore discrimination. I am sorry but NO.
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?
Last edited:
Forthefuture
Banned
Wow I am almost expecting "you mad brah?" now.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I 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.
Last edited:
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
Let's move past the initial passive aggressive posts now and debate the case in point 
Liberty4all
Banned
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.
Last edited:
Liberty4all
Banned
In Canada and the States, auto insurance companies can legally discriminate based on gender and age.
Last edited:
What a backwards country I thought Canda was so fucking woke with his hip Trudeau guy?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
I don't think this is derailing the topic because of these discrimination laws the men was "forced" to do this.
But lets go even further. Men are better in IT then women. So can I only hire men based on this in Canada?
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
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.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
Boss Mog
Member
Actually "the facts" stated in the article are that women under 25 are safer drivers than men under 25; learn to read. Probably because men under 25 take more risks behind the wheel and are more likely to act a fool due to immaturity. Later in life their accident rates are probably similar to women's. That is beside the point though, it doesn't matter who has more accidents, it's discriminatory to change men more for the same service. Sex shouldn't be factored in at all by insurance company research. 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.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
No. I believe that all people have the right to low cost affordable healthcare regardless of age, gender or risk.
Making sure your body is healthy and maintained is far more important that making sure you have car insurance therefore the rules should be different.
Last edited:
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?
Oh hey this gets even more fun. Statisically women do kill their own children more than men do. So how about these custody laws then?
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
Last edited:
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
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
Helios
Member
I do actually agree with this but I think it's treading a very fine line
Boss Mog
Member
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 your 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.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Agree to disagree then. Not all cases are equal and not all situations are the same. That is too black and white for me.
Cato
Banned
Why is he a moron, please explain.
It sounds very rational to me, low cost paperwork resulting in high cost savings.
Anyone not doing this is probably the real moron.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I already explained that. Try reading the whole thread before commenting.
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.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Did you not read what I said above?
Cato
Banned
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.
Why would not every other male on his state do the same?
If they do and it leads to women paying the same higher premiums that men pay, that is progressive ?
But again, why are you calling him a moron?
That is you being a bigot because he made choices you disagree with.
What exactly did he do that was moronic? At the end of the day, he followed the rules, the law of the land, and saved himself 1100$ per annum in car insurance.
Why is that moronic?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
TheChewyWaffles
Member
If they also draw less at box offices, should they receive less pay?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Someone already beat you to the punch of trying to take what I said and twist it to another situation.
makaveli60
Member
This is just the usual "equality as long as it is good for me".
Panda1
Banned
User admitted that they were ignorant of a point. Let's be less antagonistic towards that attitude please. It's a good trait to have.
In Europe thats the norm... you learn things every day since you start with such limited knowledge. Its great that this forum is educating you .
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Triggered
gunslikewhoa
Member
Wow. Some people really need to lighten up.
I didn't even have to read half the first page before seeing a bunch of, "So what you're really saying is..."
I didn't even have to read half the first page before seeing a bunch of, "So what you're really saying is..."
Phoenix RISING
Banned
I also find the story funny like the OP, but I also agree with
Forthefuture
in terms of the thread's intent.
This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that an individual might do something like check a box to game the system, with very little investment in the broader implications of that box check. However, these tend to limited to stories of bold individuals rather than a broad social movement.
And I think that's what Forthefuture was really getting to. There are people who have been trying to check the other box for most of their lives, but certain stringent social forces refuse to allow it. And nothing about that is funny.
Forthefuture
in terms of the thread's intent. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that an individual might do something like check a box to game the system, with very little investment in the broader implications of that box check. However, these tend to limited to stories of bold individuals rather than a broad social movement.
And I think that's what Forthefuture was really getting to. There are people who have been trying to check the other box for most of their lives, but certain stringent social forces refuse to allow it. And nothing about that is funny.
Papa
Banned
Your arguments are absurd because if you simply swapped the discriminated class from gender to race, you would be up in arms. No consistency, no logic, no principles.
Papa
Banned
Because the individual should not be punished for the statistics of the group. It’s the same reason discrimination by immutable characteristics is illegal in pretty much any other application.
Coolio McAwesome
Member
The insurance company will be in for a world of hurt if they turn down future claims from this guy or anyone else. We're supposed to accept that gender is fluid. 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.
This is going to be a shit show for a while and I suspect a lot of lawyers are going to make a lot of money. In the end, the insurance companies are simply going to eliminate gender-based pricing tiers altogether. There's no way around it.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
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.
Papa
Banned
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.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Yes because companies never ever do things that are unethical or illegal in order to increase profit....
Last edited:
Cato
Banned
He did nothing wrong. He followed the rules.
If someone is a moron then it is the person that created these rules and became upset "people use the rules in way I disagree with."
Hoya Destroyer
Member
I was ready to laugh, but an $1100 saving is a nice chunk of change.
InterMusketeer
Gold Member
Wow... Nice going Canada! Did they truly think this was a workable solution?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked