Today's nonsensical offering

[NiceGerbil]

Just came across this.

'Why Life Insurers Ask About Gender

Life insurers ask about gender because of the correlation between gender and mortality. Being assigned to the male or female sex at birth is related to how long we live. As a large, international 2019 study in the journalClinical Chemistrypoints out, "Male life expectancy is lower than female life expectancy in all countries."1 This difference began to show up after 1880; by the middle of the 20th century, mortality of those older than 45 became twice as high for men than for women, due to "men's greater vulnerability to cardiovascular disease and differential uptake of smoking." With women smoking more, the difference decreased, but still exists. There are significant differences in the rates between countries and at different times, but in almost all cases in modern times, females live longer.'

So you have to ask yourself why medical professionals at births, or family etc for babies born without medical help, are assigning any babies male and condemning them to a shorter life? That's horrific.

Who knew midwives had such power?

What utter bollocks.

Wow! Where on earth did you find that?

So you have to ask yourself why medical professionals at births, or family etc for babies born without medical help, are assigning any babies male and condemning them to a shorter life? That's horrific.

Awful. Somebody needs to blow this wide open.

Where is this it's not a parody?

Definitely not a parody

www.investopedia.com/how-being-nonbinary-affects-getting-life-insurance-4869749

Just read this out to my husband who stopped laughing just long enough to ask who he can sue for shortening his life expectancy in this way.

Which box should you check when you don’t identify with either and when your answer could affect how much you’ll pay for insurance?

Surely anything other than your birth sex is fraud?

I suppose the problem is that actuaries don't have years of data about the mortality rates of non-binary people. For some reason.

I don't think they think gender identity instead of sex affects your life expectancy. I think they are just tying themselves in knots trying to write in a way that won't offend the genderists. They are just using old speak, (substituting gender directly for sex), and new speak "assigned at birth".

I thought, "So how DOES being non-binary affect your life insurance?" and clicked through. It says:

"Being nonbinary, genderqueer, agender, or bigender in no way disqualifies you from getting life insurance. However, for the time being, you will have to apply as either male or female."

No shit.

'For the time being'?

LOL RoyalCorgi

don't think they think gender identity instead of sex affects your life expectancy. I think they are just tying themselves in knots trying to write in a way that won't offend the genderists. They are just using old speak, (substituting gender directly for sex), and new speak "assigned at birth".

Yes absolutely, but their doing this makes it read as if midwives have the power to affect your life expectancy because they have "assigned" your sex to the lower life expectancy group. You can't just expect to put this gender ideological language in without thinking as a replacement for (biological) sex.

If talking yourself out of your sex can now exist then the pay gap should at least equal out. That’s one positive!!! I’d absolutely love women in the future to use male pronouns at work and gain all the advantages a penis gives you in terms of promotions and wage.

I'm sorry to say the paper they cite is compelled irrelevant. It's only about sex differences, not gender.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30478135/

That's the trouble with actuaries. They never die, they just get broken down by age and sex.

Maybe the question the ONS should have asked on the census is ‘Which gender did your life insurance provider direct you to select?’ 🤦‍♀️

Completely, not compelled.

'
That's the trouble with actuaries. They never die, they just get broken down by age and sex.'

Insurance companies in EU states can no longer base premiums on whether you are male or female, since an ECJ judgement came into force in December 2012.

Of course, the UK is no longer in the EU. Whether that affects insurance companies' policies and practices in future remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see whether the UK insurers will try to base premiums on biological sex once again. If they do, making an application as female when born male, or vice versa, might well be considered fraud and enable insurers to refuse to pay out. Then again, if they do, will there be pressure for gender-neutral pricing to continue.

However, insurers can ask any questions they like about medical history. It will also be interesting to see whether attempts will be made to force them to disregard any treatments involved in gender reassignment.

Something I noticed in the article is that it says that some places don't actually look at sex when working out insurance charges - and I wondered what difference this would actually make. Is it something insurance companies would want to do? Would it make my insurance less or more expensive? (This is a different question to whether insurers should pay attention to gender identity, which obviously they shouldn't, or whether they should pay attention to transition history which they probably shouldn't.)

Also, off-piste a little, can I identify as bigender? And can I have two official ID documents, one for each gender?

Also, off-piste a little, can I identify as bigender?

I've no idea why how you eat your eggs could affect your premiums. I assume this word relates to the Lilliputian schism?

Big-ender

Since a midwife works for a local health authority, ie a public body, and by assigning some poor babies to male the nasty midwife is shortening their lives, the health authority is surely in breach of the ECHR.

Someone should bring a judicial review against a local health authority - the authority would have to argue that sex exists, in order to defend this apparently life shortening practice.

The first step of course would be for everyone to write to their LHA asking why their irresponsible midwives are shortening some poor babies’ lives by assigning them male - what possible rational justification can there possibly be for this? And see what the response from the local health authority is.

In fact, the Liliputian solution is similar to the ONS's.

The novel further describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions ... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu.