Actuaries are in the job of risk assessing only and they do all the statistical analysis proving that women are a safer risk, so to penalise them in this way (under the auspices of discrimination) is in fact 'positive discrimination'.
It undermines the whole premise of insurance, that the lower the risk the less the premium. If one were to say, 'oh she can have it cheaper cos she's a lady and she looks nice', thats sexism.... but there are wild variations in risks acrossgeographical locations also, do we then say that the lower risks areas (say for flooding/subsidence) must pay hiked premiums to avoid being racist! ... in insurance it is only based on statistical analysis. certain parts of the world attract higher insurance/reinsurance costs (thats not considered racism). If you go on holiday to a place where there is religious war, thats not considered to be dissing religion, paying higher premiums. No actuary would consider it right to just give away a discount without good reason, as where's the profit! If a group of retired folk have special discount, as they have enjoyed for many years, and the police, etc.... these can be considered as 'isms' too, if risk assessed on gender are sexism. Its positively discriminating.
No, in this area, young men are 25 times more likely than a woman to have a driving conviction, 10 times more likely to have have accident, and twice as likely to make a claim as a woman (according to the article). So those are solid rating factors, and will affect premiums, and rightly so, the burden of the premium should lay with the highest risk. What about skiing insurance (through the roof, for the same reason - high risk, many accidents, repatriation costs, foreign medical bills). Nobody sticks a finger up in the air and makes a decision on the wind direction!.. its rigorous, statistically based analysis, and if woman can't benefit from the benefits of being a safer driver then the world, and sorry to say it, but feminism also, has gone mad.