Support NeoGAF

[infinitys_7th]

*sigh* I get really tired of PC-obsessed groups conflating sex with gender. He's not a female regardless of whether he actually is a woman or not.

Any fluff "science" claiming sex and gender not having physical indicators is as anti-science as seven-day Creationism.

Oh that is rich. Lets look at the crimes commited by straight people just today. Maybe they have been tolerated long enough.

I don't think it is asking for much for someone to prove they are transgendered before getting benefits of their actual gender. A brain scan to look for structural indicators should be a standard part of diagnosing someone as being transgendered to increase efficacy of treatment, and it would also limit people taking advantage of it. That still doesn't help with the sports situation, though, where statistically MTFs will have a massive natural advantage over females.

But then I don't think everyone these days who claim to be transgendered actually are. There are demonstrable cases of it, and we can see physical evidence of it in brain scans, but certain populations made it "trendy" and "fashionable", which inevitably attracts attention-seekers who appropriate it to fill some gap in their lives.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Going off topic, they kind of were. Kidnapping children and forcing them to grow up emotionless, loveless, stigmatizing basic feelings. The Jedi was an abusive cult.

That is what lead to Anakin becoming Vader, and to basically all of the Sith Lords.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Rather, the fact that you and I instantly call this a scam is because we intuitively know gender is an immutable, essential characteristic. Children intuit this easily, but we spend tremendous effort talking ourselves out of it. These extreme examples are exactly the reductio ad absurdum needed to cure our advanced adult wisdom.

or, or. Just hear me out, it's being called a scam because:

"I have taken advantage of a loophole,"

Crazy, I know.

 

[888]

Because labeling things like Racism, Transphobia and Homophobia as "opinions" you are giving off the illusion that they have merit like any other opinion and therefore deserve to be listened to with respect. But that isn't the case.

Shitty opinion =/= Not an opinion to me let me make that clear. I will sit and listen to shitty opinions all day long, but I will not tolerate bigotry.



There is no case to be made that any of that should be tolerated and treated the same as a regular opinion or thought. Unless you believe that they can. In which case please explain to me why racism and other bigoted viewpoints should be treated with respect like other viewpoints.

Do you have your isms and labels tied to a Macro key? As often as you type them it has to be exhausting to type that in the same order all the time.

And your definition of opinion is not correct. You are just describing the type of opinion you accept. And it’s funny that in order to fit into modern society peoples opinions need to fit your breakdown.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them, you are just picking the assholes you want. Doesn’t mean the other assholes don’t exist or have merit because they aren’t your type of asshole.

And with the ever changing definitions of the left it’s nearly impossible to hold a belief and eventually not cause a label to be applied to you.

On topic.

I think this case should raise some eyebrows in a few ways. Like was brought up on the premium difference is based on stats and facts but those aren’t accepted in some other facets of society.

The other is this whole trans movement is going to have to cause companies to reevaluate policies. In this case it is being used to go around the system and avoid paying more. I personally think it is a slippery slope and hope this is similar to a fad that the people who claim all these genders lately even out. I have worked with actual people who are trans and have mental issues (even tho for some reason it isn’t listed as a mental condition anymore). Seeing all these random people being all these random things take away from people who actually need help.

And as you said earlier, you have to accept it. I disagree with that. You can respect the person but not have to accept all the choices they make. If you have to accept everything in society, where does that stop?

 

[infinitys_7th]

or, or. Just hear me out, it's being called a scam because:



Crazy, I know.

The loophole is that he doesn't have to actually prove that he is a woman in a male's body. Which is something that is actively discouraged from even being implemented as a policy as "transphobia".

 

[Zog]

Insurance companies discriminate, man finds a way around it. Good for him.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Insurance companies discriminate, man finds a way around it. I Good for him.

Statistics aren't discriminatory.

 

[Teletraan1]

I think it is great that people can choose to identify with whatever they want. The problem is that all of this was pushed through with very little discussion or evaluation of the effect of what was being proposed because to do so is "transphobic". Had actual discussion and debate allowed a proper framework for these changes to occur we could have avoided some of these post implementation problems that we are currently seeing. I think this strategy of shutting down all debate has negative effects on overall perception and acceptance of trans people and it isn't like they are some monolithic group. There are differences of opinion within that community itself but there is an authoritarian push of certain ideologies by some members. With active and healthy dialog and debate you can often change more minds than if you are forced to comply.

 

[Zog]

Statistics aren't discriminatory.

Would you say that racial profiling is discriminatory?

Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior, rather than on individual suspicion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

Now I would say that gender profiling is also discrimination, wouldn't you?

 

[Arkos]

Statistics aren't discriminatory.

Erm I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be used in some cases, but they kind of are discriminatory by their very nature, right?

 

[Musky_Cheese]

$1,100???

Be right back.

 

[Straight Edge]

Insurance companies can discriminate by sex because they have made compelling arguments to the departments of insurance for their respective states that are supported by actuarial data.

 

[poppabk]

Insurance companies can discriminate by sex because they have made compelling arguments to the departments of insurance for their respective states that are supported by actuarial data.

They cannot discriminate based on race though, even though it would be supported by actuarial data. They use credit score as a proxy.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Would you say that racial profiling is discriminatory?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

Now I would say that gender profiling is also discrimination, wouldn't you?

Depends. Is it public or private? The state should not be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, as individual obligations to the state are not race or sex-dependent.

However, suppose a company sold a supplemental diabetes insurance. We know that incidence of diabetes varies by race:

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/

• 7.4% of non-Hispanic whites
• 8.0% of Asian Americans
• 12.1% of Hispanics
• 12.7% of non-Hispanic blacks
• 15.1% of American Indians/Alaskan Natives

Why should the company not be allowed to rate those more at risk? It's illogical - insurance is a game of the company betting you won't need them and you betting you will. The same would go for a company that sold skin cancer insurance. Lighter skinned people are more at risk, so they should logically pay more to offset the increased risk. It's fair.

 

[Zog]

Depends. Is it public or private? The state should not be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, as individual obligations to the state are not race or sex-dependent.

However, suppose a company sold a supplemental diabetes insurance. We know that incidence of diabetes varies by race:

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/



Why should the company not be allowed to rate those more at risk? It's illogical - insurance is a game of the company betting you won't need them and you betting you will. The same would go for a company that sold skin cancer insurance. Lighter skinned people are more at risk, so they should logically pay more to offset the increased risk. It's fair.

It sounds like you are admitting that they are discriminating but that you are ok with it.

Car insurance is required in the US. To the consumer required to buy it, it's no game.

 

[infinitys_7th]

It sounds like you are admitting that they are discriminating but that you are ok with it.

Car insurance is required in the US. To the consumer required to buy it, it's no game.

Different groups have different risks, particularly when it comes to things that can be traced to a genetic component. That's just the reality of it.

Why should women have to pay for men being more aggressive drivers because of how their brains are structured? Why should males have to pay for ovarian cancer coverage when they don't have ovaries? Why should females have to pay for ED when they don't have dicks?

When you say "racial profiling" the connotation is immediately things like giving additional scrutiny to Middle Easterners at airports or stop and frisk tactics and the like. Those are different - those are assuming an inherent racial link to the behaviors they are targeting when there is not one. Even if there is a correlation, there is no causation there that we can prove versus simple physical traits like diabetes susceptibility or presence/lack of certain sex organs.

 

[Barsinister]

Did anyone stop to consider that men need to be paid more than women in order to afford the more expensive car insurance?

 

[Ulysses 31]

Did anyone stop to consider that men need to be paid more than women in order to afford the more expensive car insurance?

Or the higher alimony rates? >.>

 

[Arkos]

Or the higher alimony rates? >.>

 

[Zog]

Why should women have to pay for men being more aggressive drivers because of how their brains are structured?

Why should men who are not aggressive drivers pay more? Shouldn't a few tickets or an accident (where you are at fault) be the determining factor if a man pays more?

Just to clarify, you are ok with discrimination when insurance companies do it?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Why should men who are not aggressive drivers pay more? Shouldn't a few tickets or an accident (where you are at fault) be the determining factor if a man pays more?

Just to clarify, you are ok with discrimination when insurance companies do it?

It's not against the law, and that's the business model of all insurance. They group and risk assess, that's their model.

You gotta change the law, it's not about being okay with discrimination.

 

[Zog]

It's not against the law, and that's the business model of all insurance. They group and risk assess, that's their model.

You gotta change the law, it's not about being okay with discrimination.

It is about being ok with discrimination for the purpose of this discussion.

Do insurance companies racially profile too?

 

[Super Mario]

At this present time, the definition of discrimination is: any practice or policy that disproportionately has a negative impact for females and/or those with darker skin.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Zog]

At this present time, the definition of discrimination is: any practice or policy that disproportionately has a negative impact for females and/or those with darker skin.

Prove me wrong.

Can't argue with this.

 

[Vicetrailia]

It is about being ok with discrimination for the purpose of this discussion.

Do insurance companies racially profile too?

That is an emotional argument that has no bearing on reality.

It is a standard legal business model. It is not against the law. It is not classified as discrimination in the weight of civil rights. It is not a civil right as currently classified.

Unless you want to draft something, this is a dumb argument that isn't a problem.

 

[Moneal]

It's not against the law, and that's the business model of all insurance. They group and risk assess, that's their model.

You gotta change the law, it's not about being okay with discrimination.

Banks risk assessing and having higher interest rates for black loan applicants due to race is wrong, but insurance companies doing the same with gender is fine?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Banks risk assessing and having higher interest rates for black loan applicants due to race is wrong, but insurance companies doing the same with gender is fine?

Yes. It is fine. That is forbidden, the insurance isn't.

BTW the results of the banks risk assessment was a result of institutional racism.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yes. It is fine. That is forbidden, the insurance isn't.

Forbidden... by laws? Laws =/= ethics. In fact, a lot of laws are not ethically sound, so for that to be an argument, is disingenuous as fuck, i.e. not morally consistent.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Forbidden... by laws? Laws =/= ethics. In fact, a lot of laws are not ethically sound, so for that to be an argument, is disingenuous as fuck, i.e. not morally consistent.

It doesn't need to be morally consistent, that is just the reality. You gotta change the law to forbid it.

 

[prag16]

Forbidden... by laws? Laws =/= ethics. In fact, a lot of laws are not ethically sound, so for that to be an argument, is disingenuous as fuck, i.e. not morally consistent.

This reminds me of some of the arguments on the old site in favor of draconian DRM. People selectively more concerned about legality than ethics in some situations, but the reverse in others.

 

[Zog]

It doesn't need to be morally consistent, that is just the reality. You gotta change the law to forbid it.

We can conclude though that you are morally ok with insurance companies discriminating but not ok when banks do it, yes?

 

[Zog]

This reminds me of some of the arguments on the old site in favor of draconian DRM. People selectively more concerned about legality than ethics in some situations, but the reverse in others.

Yes, discrimination is ok when it happens to certain groups of people in the minds of some.

 

[cryptoadam]

Statistics aren't discriminatory.

That brings up something interesting. Female drivers pay less because statistically they get into less accidents. Is it because of a biological reason? And if so since a M to F isn't changing their biology does it make sense to include them in the statistics of getting into less accidents? Does becoming a transgender women all of a sudden change your driving habits when you were a cis gender man?

It seems like it would skew the statistics IMO. Changing your gender doesn't automatically change your driving habits.

 

[infinitys_7th]

That brings up something interesting. Female drivers pay less because statistically they get into less accidents. Is it because of a biological reason? And if so since a M to F isn't changing their biology does it make sense to include them in the statistics of getting into less accidents? Does becoming a transgender women all of a sudden change your driving habits when you were a cis gender man?

It seems like it would skew the statistics IMO. Changing your gender doesn't automatically change your driving habits.

Gender is biological, though. It's a representation of the structure of the brain. Male vs female describes somatic sex - sex organs, secondary sexual characteristics (including bone and muscle differences). Man vs woman describes neurological sex. The brain sexually differentiates later than the rest of the body, and certain issues can cause it to be the "opposite sex" from the body. Which is where dysphoria-type symptoms come from - the female brain is wired to expect a vagina, to expect female hormone fluctuations, lighter bones, etc., but in a MTF it instead sees a penis, high testosterone, denser bones, etc. The brain is designed to have a sense of the body:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception

which these differences mess with. It's kind of like getting a computer with a driver installed for Keyboard A, but Keyboard B comes with it instead. Keyboard B is still useable, but sometimes a key stops work or the keyboard stops communicating with the computer and you have to unplug and replug it.

A MTF would be more similar mentally to a female (who had a female brain), so I would expect that they would have less accidents than a male (who had a male brain). Of course, this could be affected by the "blending" transpeople tend to have (MTFs seem to have better spatial reasoning skills than females, based on the heavy showing they have in programming, gaming, and other areas affected by those skills) and by the comorbidity transgenderism has with mental problems that could lead to distracted driving.

 

[cryptoadam]

Gender is biological, though. It's a representation of the structure of the brain. Male vs female describes somatic sex - sex organs, secondary sexual characteristics (including bone and muscle differences). Man vs woman describes neurological sex. The brain sexually differentiates later than the rest of the body, and certain issues can cause it to be the "opposite sex" from the body. Which is where dysphoria-type symptoms come from - the female brain is wired to expect a vagina, to expect female hormone fluctuations, lighter bones, etc., but in a MTF it instead sees a penis, high testosterone, denser bones, etc. The brain is designed to have a sense of the body:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception

which these differences mess with. It's kind of like getting a computer with a driver installed for Keyboard A, but Keyboard B comes with it instead. Keyboard B is still useable, but sometimes a key stops work or the keyboard stops communicating with the computer and you have to unplug and replug it.

A MTF would be more similar mentally to a female (who had a female brain), so I would expect that they would have less accidents than a male (who had a male brain). Of course, this could be affected by the "blending" transpeople tend to have (MTFs seem to have better spatial reasoning skills than females, based on the heavy showing they have in programming, gaming, and other areas affected by those skills) and by the comorbidity transgenderism has with mental problems that could lead to distracted driving.

I guess we are too early in the science now but I would like to see statistics on transgender women and their accident rates compared to cis gender men/women. Its data we might have to wait a few years to have access to.

Is there any studies on the lieklyhood of diseaes, illness in men vs women and how that plays out for transger people? That a transgender female has the same % of certain illness as a cis gender female or cis gender male? Something like diabities or cancer etc....

 

[Vicetrailia]

We can conclude though that you are morally ok with insurance companies discriminating but not ok when banks do it, yes?

Yes. In this explicit situation it is morally okay. Now in my ideal world it would be about the individual, or further, it would be about other things too.

 

[Zog]

Yes. In this explicit situation it is morally okay.

Why is it ok here but not elsewhere?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Why is it ok here but not elsewhere?

It's not against the law. The data stacks up. The root cause stacks up, and therefore the business model makes sense from a risk perspective. No one really cares, it's something that we live with, and no one is motivated to change it. And, there's no dubious history associated, it's cut and dry.

 

[SatansReverence]

He either doesn't understand the harm he is causing by doing something like this which makes him a moron

or

He just doesn't care which makes him a shitty human being



So i guess its either. Then again he could not know the harm he is doing and still be a shitty person so then it would be both I guess.

Not at all. I do find it Transphobic however to not recognize the chosen gender of a transgender person. You may not personally find them attractive etc etc but you are required to respect and acknowledge their choice in my opinion.


Same goes for same sex marriages and other similar LGBTQ issues. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to accept and acknowledge it.

Soooooo you're transphobic too?

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not against the law. The data stacks up. The root cause stacks up. No one really cares.

Well, the guy in the OP article cared.

 

[Zog]

It's not against the law. The data stacks up. The root cause stacks up, and therefore the business model makes sense from a risk perspective. No one really cares, it's something that we live with, and no one is motivated to change it. And, there's no dubious history associated, it's cut and dry.

No one really cares because it's men paying more for car insurance. When it's discrimination against men, the masses don't care.

If the law were changed, would your moral opinion change?

 

[TrainedRage]

Wow you are quick. Yes OP's intention was clear from the get-go despite his sad continuous efforts to frame it as "just a funny brah"

...eh at least he puts effort behind his "trolls" ..... unlike some people.

 

[Spheyr]

It's not against the law.

So long as there's no law against it, it's okay to do?

 

[Vicetrailia]

So long as there's no law against it, it's okay to do?

The law doesn't care, so go make it care.

No one really cares because it's men paying more for car insurance. When it's discrimination against men, the masses don't care.

If the law were changed, would your moral opinion change?

I'm a male dude and I don't give a shit. If you advocate to change it, I'll support.

 

[Zog]

The law doesn't care, so go make it care.



I'm a male dude and I don't give a shit. If you advocate to change it, I'll support.

Being male doesn’t automatically make you care about discrimination against men.

 

[Dunki]

It's not against the law. The data stacks up. The root cause stacks up, and therefore the business model makes sense from a risk perspective. No one really cares, it's something that we live with, and no one is motivated to change it. And, there's no dubious history associated, it's cut and dry.

"we do not care" because this only affects men. Another reason why feminism is an outdated believe. In a so "woke" country it is suddendly ok if the discrimination his men. If this was the case for women people and you would be up in arms.