Is it sexist for the insurance industry to take gender into account when setting its premiums?

[Lio]

You've probably seen article like this one in the last few days, talking about how women could find insurance premiums (particularly car insurance) going up if the EU rules it discriminatory to take gender into account when setting its premiums.

A friend has asked whether this is discrimination against men, or just sound business sense? I've always thought the latter, given that the stastistics show that women have fewer car accidents and less spectacular ones than men. But if someone is told that the reason their premium is higher because they're a man, isn't that sexist?

I know there are other issues involved, such as age, but what do you think about the gender one?

Don't HerBeX - there's good stuff in your head that needs preserving for the nation :)

On the single mothers point perhaps they assume single mothers statistically do more driving than those with a partner and will statistically be more tired than those with a partner, both of which are increased risk factors.

But I didn't see on my car insurance quote a box asking whether I had children....

Insurance is pretty much comparable to placing a bet.

You bet that you will have an accident. You put money in, and if you have an accident then you 'win' a larger amount of money.

The insurance companies are the bookmakers, they hope that you won't have an accident, because then they get to keep your money.

It is not unreasonable for them to change the 'odds' of your bet based on how likely they believe it is that you will have an accident. They actually spend a lot of time and effort figuring out exactly how likely it is that you will have an accident, so that they can strike a balance between competitive pricing and profit-making.

'In taking this view you are aligning yourself with the "PC gone mad" brigade and I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourselves on the receiving end of the same flawed reasoning.

I won;t make a decision or not make one based on whether someone assigns me to that category. That would be incredibly stupid.

Logic says that if females have a statistically smaller chance of costing the company money they will be charged less. It's not a parallel to NI as chidlbirth, caring etc are roles that postively impact on society.

'Gender is a characteristic that you have no control over and it does not change over time like age.

So are many otehr factors incolved in insurance, such as health history.

Age is not the same as sex in this context because it changes over time. Over the course of an individuals life the effect of age on insurance pricing may be both positive and negative.

Just because I agree that sex should not be used t discriminate in insurance pricing it does no that I want to outlaw discrimination on any grounds. Because insurance companies currently use sex, should the able to use race or ethnic origin if they can show a statistical correlation?

Should the police stop and search more young back men and should we target airport screening at young Muslim men if the stats suggest this would be effective?

If you accept that is such a thing as a protected characteristic in relation to equality law, then you need to apply the principle consistently.

In terms of public medical policy there may be biological factors that determine the differences between sexes. Even if there is only statistical correlation, the effect of initiatives to 'target' a specific sex still seem to me to be justifiable as long as you are not directly discriminating against one sex by making it more difficult for them to access services.

I really am surprised at the hostility to this on here. The opinion before the court is a progressive one that is entirely consistent with existing equality law. This was one of few places I expected to see some support for it.

I know that there will be a few winners and losers and that ultimately consumers will pay the price of change, but sometimes we have to pay the price of doing the right thing.

I suppose I can understand the hostility toward gleeful misogynists who think its a case of feminism being hoist by it's own petard, but I most people recognise it isn't that simple.

Of corse, there's no guarantee that the court will accept the opinion and given recent form, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK gov decided to ignore it anyway.

Bugger, loads of typos in that. Sorry - typed on phone keypad.

But as I said before there are other characteristoics that might not change over time that influence it all- eg health status.

There's also another flip side: who suffers is this 'loophole' (we'd have to disagree about whether it is, but...) was closed? The poorest. Carers who have tohave a car (often women), the disabled (shared), people in the sort of low paid jobs that still need a car (oh women again...... care assistantts, cleaners, etc). Funny that. Men on the other hand would win tremendously by having their premiums cut.

I still don't believe it is down to sexism though. Women as a gener have less accidents. typically ahve smaller cars (the classic school run car), cover less mileage....

After all, why would 'one woman owner' be the staple of the small time car sales lot otherwise?

But your health status does have a causal effect on things like life expectancy. If you have diabetes, it's quite likely to cause your death, so it's going to affect your life insurance.

The difference between men and women in insurance claim statistics show a correlation, but nobody ever said after an accident that it was caused by the presence of a penis in the driving seat. OK, so not literally anyway - the guy driving the car may have driven like a cock, but his biology did not actually cause the accident.

Millag and car size are all part of the risk model anyway.

If insurers can't use sex, they can always look for some other proxy for risky behaviour. Regulatory disruption presents an opportunity for individual insurers as well as a cost.

' the guy driving the car may have driven like a cock, but his biology did not actually cause the accident.'

Should we be using gender led hate terms on this thread? Would we accept twats I wonder, or would prat / idiot / suicidal maniac suffice?

If more guys drive like idiots then women, it's a sensible reason for insurance companies to use. It is not syaing 'oooh we like women, come sit here in your pwetty leetle frock and bat your eyelids of fragrant madame'- it is saying 'men are more likely to cost us cash to it is ONE of the risk groups we idnetify'.

Gender is something that IS easily mitigated by safe driving, not acquiring point,s buying a mslaler car: it is far from a defining feature.

I ahve only boys, and doubt I will be able to pay for them to drive whilst they (I say they, I have no ideas whether ds1 will eb allowed to drive or not and ds3 definitely not) are dependent on me, but I don't think that's sexism: just the fact that statistically as a group they are a worse bet.

I have to agree with Jeanine here. Correlation is not causation and women will generally be worse off when companies are allowed to act otherwise.

I was an actuarial assistant for a short while straight out of university (so sometime ago). At least back then, the gender discrimination in the insurance industry was not generally in women's favour.

Ok so you don't like my turn of phrase. It wasn't intended to offend, but I make no appologies if it did.

I'd rather nobody had to "mitigate their gender" whatever the hell you mean by that or however easy you think it might be.

@suchprospects, I entirely agree. If we accept the principle that sex discrimination is ok if backed by statistical correlation then that might take us to some uncomfortable places.

I was beginning to think I was going mad.

@ScramVonChubby, Apologies for being a bit spiky in my last comment.

I don't think insurance companies particularly favour women over men once they are over 25. If you lived round here you would see why young men have higher insurance .

Shileas Wheels quoted me cheaper insurance with my husband on as a named driver than with me on my own. I have had a clean license my whole life and have no claims. he has speeding points and claims for malicious damage. Explain that please someone?

Are posters on here seriously arguing that the insurance industry has a deliberate sexist policy to do down men wherever they can? That's ludicrous!

What of the fact that some types of insurance are more expensive for women than for men, because for those insurances women have greater risk factors?

Jeanine you are aware I'm sure that insurers are allowed to DECLINE to cover people who they consider a poor risk. The reasons for the declinatures potentially breach a raft of anti-discrimination legislation. Do you think that insurers should be forced to cover all risks at affordable premiums? Again - bang goes the insurance industry.

At the moment insurers ask questions about a raft of things and use them to evaluate their risk - whether the person is sexually active in combination with sexual oritentation for example. They also take into account if people were born in different parts of the world. And age of course. They are forever using statistical averages about different types of people to assess their risk.

Can I also point out that diabetes is not certainly going to kill you, any more than being a young male driver is certainly going to kill you. Both of those things are risk factors which are taken in conjunction with the other aspects of the persons risk profile.

I don't understand this. Are people saying that they want "discrimination" to continue with insurance companies when it comes to age, disability, sexual orientation, country of birth etc etc etc but absolutely not on sex? Where is the logic in that?

Thanks for the distinction on correlation and causation; had kinda picked that up in the MA Stats module I am currently taking........

And Yes: SQ says it much better than me. Insurers deal not with causation but risk factors.

No sardine, I think people are being sarcastic in response to those who are saying it is a sexist move by insurance companies to discriminate against men.

I asked a question way above about what on earth the motive would be if it was indeed discriminating agaist men.. Generally large corporations have men as heads of the board so it makes no sense that the fact women pay less for car insurance would be anything other than for business gain.

"I asked a question way above about what on earth the motive would be if it was indeed discriminating against men.. Generally large corporations have men as heads of the board so it makes no sense that the fact women pay less for car insurance would be anything other than for business gain."

Unless insurance companies have made it a social norm to expect to pay more as a male which they can get away with. There could be an argument as generally men earn more than women its easier to get them to pay than women who statistically have less disposable cash.

That doesn't stack up though.

Otherwise underwear firms, shoe companies, cosmetics companies, clothes companies etc., would all be doing it.

I very much doubt that it is a capitalist plot. I just think it's an actuarial practice.

I have to agree I don't think sex should be used by car insurance companies to assess risk it is completely sexist but I don't think they are trying to be sexist deliberately. I think it is more about being able to charge more for the sake of charging more for profit because the stats say that men are more likely to have an accident and I believe they would do the same to women/any other group if the stats were different. I don't think it should happen. Just because you have a penis you are going to be charged more. There would be an uproar here if it was just because you have a vagina you are going to be charged more. I can't drive a car properly because apparently my penis gets in the way. Age on the other hand is completely different with age oftens comes a lot more maturity and you are more likely to be careful and responsible and more financially sound. Just my opinion.

Side note:

I guess what I am saying is they are using the stats to exploit rather than to risk assess which i think is very unfair. I also believe that there are more male drivers on the road which would obviously lead to more male accidents that female ones.

So do you think hairdressers should stop having lists of haircut prices for men and women?

Women get charged more to get their hair cut, purely becuase they have vaginas.

Er no, women get charged more because they are more likely to have long hair and also because often, the style they want takes more skill and more time to cut. So even if you are a woman who simply wants a short back and sides, you are going to be charged more than a man who wants the same haircut.

Should that be made illegal too?

Swallowedafly, that's exaclty what I was trying to say incoherently - it's just such a random example isn't it - and then that person has the cheek to come back and say they're not prejudiced against single mothers. Nah, not much.