Play Nice Hannah Mouncey, transgender AFLW hopeful

[jatz14]

That could be said for many things. If there was data black people made more claims should they all be charged more?

Pretty sure they would be. After all, the company doesn't say, the reason your premium is the size it is is because you are black. You just get a number, you dont get to see the actuarial stats behind it.

Edit, this is with the proviso that the info is legally allowed to be collected. Like with interview questions, I believe there are restrictions on the data that can be used. I suspect race may be one of these. I dont recall ever putting my race in on an online insurance application, because they may not be allowed to ask that question.

This is also going to be an important question in the future as genetic predisposition to disease becomes better understood. Companies will want access to your genetic profile before giving you health insurance. This is good business, but bad public policy.

 

[Masher]

Pretty sure they would be.

Nonsense.. there is no way a insurance company would charge more because of race even if they knew a certain race costed them more money. You are making things up

 

[owen87]

Nonsense.. there is no way a insurance company would charge more because of race even if they knew a certain race costed them more money. You are making things up

If they were legally allowed to they most definitely would.

If the government mandated that insurance premiums must be charged equally between men and women where no claims history exists, young female drivers would see their premiums increase to cover the increased risk required for the male drivers, we wouldn't see a premium decrease for men.

 

[jatz14]

Nonsense.. there is no way a insurance company would charge more because of race even if they knew a certain race costed them more money. You are making things up

The entire basis of the stats behind insurance is to find ways of identifying groups with different risk, and charging accordingly. If they could legally charge a different amount for different racial groups, they would, it's the basis for their business model.

Even then it wouldn't be that simple, they would take into account your race, but also gender, age, where you live, history etc.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Engimal v3]

Nonsense.. there is no way a insurance company would charge more because of race even if they knew a certain race costed them more money. You are making things up

If not for legal penalties and public backlash, they absolutely would. Statistically, certain races are more likely to do certain things, certain genders are more likely to do certain things, and certain aged people are more likely to do certain things.

 

[Masher]

It's easy and acceptable to pick on males and charge more but race has much baggage attached and no company wants to be seen as racist as there would be an outcry.

Stats actually show females use more finances of health budgets but no way will Health Companies raise the premium of females as it would be seen as sexist. Males are fair game for discrimination

 

[jatz14]

It's easy and acceptable to pick on males and charge more but race has much baggage attached and no company wants to be seen as racist as there would be an outcry.

Stats actually show females use more finances of health budgets but no way will Health Companies raise the premium of females as it would be seen as sexist. Males are fair game for discrimination

Its hard to say thats the case though, because gender differences tend to be swamped by other differences. If your male, but older, and a smoker, your a much bigger risk than a younger women. Modern websites incorporate a lot of data when offering an insurance premium, and your gender is one of them, while race is not. I would be surprised if gender was not taken into account, although I do not know it is, and as I said, other risk factors may play a bigger role in the premium.

 

[jatz14]

It's not a problem, it's the best method.




Phillips body would be totally wrecked by the time she was in her early 20's. That's if she hadn't been knocked out multiple times through impact play. Look at the physical toll football takes on male bodies. Adding large amounts of testosterone to her body wouldn't offset to any great degree the physical impact she would have to absorb game in and out.

Williams game might improve slightly playing against men, but that would only be reflected in her play against women, she'd still get thrashed by the men. No amount of testosterone will allow he to move around a tennis court like a Federer or Djokovic. They are able to to that because of the physiology of the male body.

Which goes back to my initial point, if Rhonda Rousey had been fighting male opponents and taking testosterone since she was 16 she'd still get knocked the **** out in under a minute against male opponents.

Of course, he is a thug, not a trained fighter, however, he went there prepared, she just found herself being robbed.

She would lose to a trained fighter easily, but it does show what people easily forget when making male/female comparisons. The actual differences amongst top male athletes are fairly small when compared to the general population. This means a female who would lose to all the pro men isnt necessarily as far of them as that might imply She can be way better than the average guy, but if she is 5% of the top men, she probably loses to all of them, and easily.

Statements like, Williams would lose to every one of the top 200 male tennis players, while true, tend to underestimate her talent and sporting ability, which is why such comments are made generally.

Edit: I should have pointed out, he showed her he had a gun in his waistband. She decided, `even if it is real, he cannot get it out fast enough to stop me decking him` (my paraphrasing). I would also point out, she has only had 2 UFC fights, and lost one of them.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Of course, he is a thug, not a trained fighter, however, he went there prepared, she just found herself being robbed.

She would lose to a trained fighter easily, but it does show what people easily forget when making male/female comparisons.

She would lose to a trained fighter easily?
Well if she would I'd say she wouldn't of been signed by the biggest MMA company on the planet

 

[basashi]

Not discrimination, it's math.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Most discrimination would be allowable going by that rule.

There are a number of points to make here.

Firstly, if you adjust for driving distance and location the gender gap in motor claims diappears. EG, a male that travels 5km aroung a melbourne suburb to shop and visit schools is going to have a lot of car park bingles. A female who lives in Bendigo and works in Ballarat is going to invite highway accidents. Men and women have different driving patterns due to the way families make decisions about their roles.

Secondly, discrimination is the use of information about a CLASS to which you belong and applying it to an individual as if the information about the CLASS is also true of the INDIVIDUAL. Here are some examples:
- If I run a corner store in a country town where there are a lot of very disadvantaged Aboriginal families, I am probably going to experience more petty crime from them than from the relatively wealthy white families. It is discriminatory if I stop an Aboriginal coming into my store on the basis of race and demand that that they adhere to different rules. Under your test it would be allowable.
- Women between the ages of 23 and 40 have a strong tendency to fall pregnant and take maternity leave. It is discriminatory to apply a different standard to female job applicants. Under your test it would be allowable.
Discrimination in not objectionable because the statisitic is untrue of the whole group; it is objectionable because it is being applied to the individual.

Thirdly, you should be aware that there are other areas of insurance where women claim more than men. The ban on gender based pricing in US health insurance is relatively recent. Until then, women were rated in many cases and more than 1.5X the price of men. This has been struck down as it is discriminatory. It is objectionable not because it is untrue that women cost more - but because the statistic about the whole gender is being applied to individuals.

Lastly, in an eminently sensible decision, the EU has struck down gender differential pricing in motor insurance as well. It was held to be discriminatory.

 

[jatz14]

Most discrimination would be allowable going by that rule.

There are a number of points to make here.

Firstly, if you adjust for driving distance and location the gender gap in motor claims diappears. EG, a male that travels 5km aroung a melbourne suburb to shop and visit schools is going to have a lot of car park bingles. A female who lives in Bendigo and works in Ballarat is going to invite highway accidents. Men and women have different driving patterns due to the way families make decisions about their roles.

Secondly, discrimination is the use of information about a CLASS to which you belong and applying it to an individual as if the information about the CLASS is also true of the INDIVIDUAL. Here are some examples:
- If I run a corner store in a country town where there are a lot of very disadvantaged Aboriginal families, I am probably going to experience more petty crime from them than from the relatively wealthy white families. It is discriminatory if I stop an Aboriginal coming into my store on the basis of race and demand that that they adhere to different rules. Under your test it would be allowable.
- Women between the ages of 23 and 40 have a strong tendency to fall pregnant and take maternity leave. It is discriminatory to apply a different standard to female job applicants. Under your test it would be allowable.
Discrimination in not objectionable because the statisitic is untrue of the whole group; it is objectionable because it is being applied to the individual.

Thirdly, you should be aware that there are other areas of insurance where women claim more than men. The ban on gender based pricing in US health insurance is relatively recent. Until then, women were rated in many cases and more than 1.5X the price of men. This has been struck down as it is discriminatory. It is objectionable not because it is untrue that women cost more - but because the statistic about the whole gender is being applied to individuals.

Lastly, in an eminently sensible decision, the EU has struck down gender differential pricing in motor insurance as well. It was held to be discriminatory.

That's a lot of typing to little point.

Clearly, not allowing an Aboriginal into your store due to their race is discriminatory, and unlawful, and I am not suggesting otherwise.

Also, premiums are based on an absolute risk. How likely are you to smash the car in 12 months, not how likely per kilometre, or trip. I also said age is part of it, your not just priced due to being male, but due to being a male 18 year old for instance.

Insurance companies work out their premiums based on a calculation of your risk of needing to claim.

They would prefer to use accurate personal info about you and your circumstances. For health insurance, your health habits, family history, genetics, diet etc.

In the US, this causes a lot of problems, where companies seem to be freer in how they use the data. If you have a serious known condition, you may not be able to get insurance, or it excludes that condition, or premiums are so high, they cannot be afforded.

In the absence of such data, they use group data. Age, location, gender etc.

Insurance companies have over a hundred years of claims data to go on, and access to public records. They do have risk broken down by race, age, gender, postcode, income group etc.

The law says some of it they cannot use, this is a good thing. Insurance exists to spread the risk, but left to their own devices, insurance companies would price anyone at real risk out of the market.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Masher]

Statements like, Williams would lose to every one of the top 200 male tennis players, while true, tend to underestimate her talent and sporting ability, which is why such comments are made generally.

No one under estimates her sporting ability just like no one under estimates the sporting ability of the top 200 men.
The difference is as a woman she has made tens of millions and the guy at 200 is struggling - isn't that discrimination to reward her so much but of course its allowed as she is female

That is simple hypocrisy

 

[Masher]

Its hard to say thats the case though, because gender differences tend to be swamped by other differences. If your male, but older, and a smoker, your a much bigger risk than a younger women. Modern websites incorporate a lot of data when offering an insurance premium, and your gender is one of them, while race is not. I would be surprised if gender was not taken into account, although I do not know it is, and as I said, other risk factors may play a bigger role in the premium.

Bringing up minor issues doesn't make your position plausable as you ignore the reality.

The MAJOR issue is that females use far more of the finances in regard to health . That is a FACT as I have checked it.

None of the Health companies would dare raise the premiums for women due to the outcry of sexism but its acceptable to discriminate against men

 

[owen87]

Insurance exists to spread the risk, but left to their own devices, insurance companies would price anyone at real risk out of the market.

People seem to inherently misunderstand how insurance works. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, as such, they will - where legally able - use every piece of available information about an individual to estimate that risk (in dollar terms) and price their premium in such a way that the income from their policy is more than the outgoings.

Now obviously due to constraints not every risk factor can be identified, certainly not legally, and sometimes accidents happen, which is why that risk is then spread across a range of people and premiums.

I'm really not sure what point people are trying to argue here; if it's the ideological position that people should not be charged more due to <insert factor here> then they might have a point, but so long as insurers are legally able to collect various demographic data, they will use it to do risk analysis on applicants.

 

[Masher]

I'm really not sure what point people are trying to argue here; if it's the ideological position that people should not be charged more due to <insert factor here> then they might have a point, but so long as insurers are legally able to collect various demographic data, they will use it to do risk analysis on applicants.

You are making sense - these companies know they can discriminate against males and get away with it - it's as simple as that

Now let these companies try with females and the feminist tanks will blitzkrieg them faster than Hitlers tanks in Poland

 

[owen87]

She would lose to a trained fighter easily?
Well if she would I'd say she wouldn't of been signed by the biggest MMA company on the planet

Much like the Serena Williams example; she's (possibly) the best female tennis player of all time, yet would struggle to beat a male in the Top-200 of current players. People drastically over-estimate Williams' standing in comparison to male players, and how good even the 200th ranked player is, but also underestimate how poor the average person is at tennis.

A trained male fighter would in all likelihood have a female fighter covered, due to discrepancies in size and/or strength.

In both scenarios I would expect a trained tennis player or fighter to wipe the floor with an untrained tennis player or fighter. Not a particularly controversial position to hold I don't think.

 

[owen87]

You are making sense - these companies know they can discriminate against males and get away with it - it's as simple as that

Now let the try with females and the feminist tanks will blitzreig them faster then than Hitlers tanks in Poland

Which is a point you could happily take the Feminism thread on the SRP forum. I'm not sure how it relates to Mouncey or Transgender participation in sport?

 

[basashi]

That's a lot of typing to little point.

Clearly, not allowing an Aboriginal into your store due to their race is discriminatory, and unlawful, and I am not suggesting otherwise.

Also, premiums are based on an absolute risk. How likely are you to smash the car in 12 months, not how likely per kilometre, or trip. I also said age is part of it, your not just priced due to being male, but due to being a male 18 year old for instance.

Insurance companies work out their premiums based on a calculation of your risk of needing to claim.

They would prefer to use accurate personal info about you and your circumstances. For health insurance, your health habits, family history, genetics, diet etc.

In the US, this causes a lot of problems, where companies seem to be freer in how they use the data. If you have a serious known condition, you may not be able to get insurance, or it excludes that condition, or premiums are so high, they cannot be afforded.

In the absence of such data, they use group data. Age, location, gender etc.

Insurance companies have over a hundred years of claims data to go on, and access to public records. They do have risk broken down by race, age, gender, postcode, income group etc.

The law says some of it they cannot use, this is a good thing. Insurance exists to spread the risk, but left to their own devices, insurance companies would price anyone at real risk out of the market.



Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I have a thorough understanding of rating and premium setting, thank you. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

But you miss the point.

You made reference to something being math, not discrimination.

 

[quotemokc]

Of course, he is a thug, not a trained fighter, however, he went there prepared, she just found herself being robbed.

She would lose to a trained fighter easily, but it does show what people easily forget when making male/female comparisons. The actual differences amongst top male athletes are fairly small when compared to the general population. This means a female who would lose to all the pro men isnt necessarily as far of them as that might imply She can be way better than the average guy, but if she is 5% of the top men, she probably loses to all of them, and easily.

Statements like, Williams would lose to every one of the top 200 male tennis players, while true, tend to underestimate her talent and sporting ability, which is why such comments are made generally.

Edit: I should have pointed out, he showed her he had a gun in his waistband. She decided, `even if it is real, he cannot get it out fast enough to stop me decking him` (my paraphrasing). I would also point out, she has only had 2 UFC fights, and lost one of them.

I can't remember who he was talking to but in a Joe Rogan podcast he was talking about how a regular dude would get his ass kicked by a female UFC fighter, if the bloke was a fair bit bigger than her and somewhat fit she would have a much harder time winning.

 

[owen87]

You made reference to something being math, not discrimination.

It can quite easily be both.

Math can say something, that something can then be used in a discriminatory fashion.

But math, in and of itself, is not discrimination.

 

[owen87]

I can't remember who he was talking to but in a Joe Rogan podcast he was talking about how a regular dude would get his ass kicked by a female UFC fighter, if the bloke was a fair bit bigger than her and somewhat fit she would have a much harder time winning.

Also the element of surprise; if you put someone in a ring clearly expecting a fight and know that you're in there with a trained fight, your behaviour would be very different than trying to intimidate someone with a gun in your waistband, not knowing they're fully capable of defending themselves and likely assuming the shock of showing a gun would be sufficient.

Good on her for having the ability to drop him though, might make some other would-be criminals think twice.

 

[basashi]

It can quite easily be both.

Math can say something, that something can then be used in a discriminatory fashion.

But math, in and of itself, is not discrimination.

The point is that it is discrimination whether or not the maths stack up. Then there is the layer of what should and shouldn't be unlawful discrimination - and that is the level at which there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and at which governments struggle to be consistent. It is clear that with what we know now, the exemption that allows gender pricing on motor cover is a failure.

 

[owen87]

The point is that it is discrimination whether or not the maths stack up. Then there is the layer of what should and shouldn't be unlawful discrimination - and that is the level at which there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and at which governments struggle to be consistent. It is clear that with what we know now, the exemption that allows gender pricing on motor cover is a failure.

A failure by what measure?

Insurance companies making a profit wouldn't consider it a failure at all. In fact, they'd prefer to have access to more data points to use to estimate the risk of an applicant.

Certain factors; age, gender, race, place of residence, type of vehicle etc.. would all have some level of correlation to risk level.

Calling it 'discrimination' in the sense that you're implying is a bit of a long bow. If your argument is that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to set premiums based off correlated risk factors, then your argument is sound, but we'd then have to consider what other factors should be excluded.

• Should a young person pay more just because they're younger?
• Should someone living in a 'poor' area pay more because their area is high risk? In fact, if they live in that area they're also less likely to be able to afford a higher premium.

Insurance relies upon a collective spreading of the risk, so low risk people will tend to pay more to offset the high risk ones that might be considered otherwise un-insurable at a reasonable price. All this also has to then provide a profit to a for-profit entity.

 

[jatz14]

No one under estimates her sporting ability just like no one under estimates the sporting ability of the top 200 men.
The difference is as a woman she has made tens of millions and the guy at 200 is struggling - isn't that discrimination to reward her so much but of course its allowed as she is female

That is simple hypocrisy

Bollocks.

Williams is the top competitor in a comp that makes quite a lot of money. Hence, she gets the lion's share of the prize money in that comp.

200th ranked man is 200th in his comp, and gets prize money accordingly.

For him to get more than Williams means he is getting some of the women's tour prize money. That's the only way it could happen.

Think about your proposition rationally for a minute (please, try).

The objection from men to players in the AFLW being paid is that the comp doesn't generate profit. Male players play in a comp that generates a lot of money, that's why they get the big bucks. It is PC gone mad to expect female players to be paid by organisations that make their money of male comps.

The women's tennis tour generates a lot of income, meaning, if you dominate that tour, your going to make a lot of money.

This suddenly is wrong, it's now not reward for generating the money, it had to be split so every man that can beat Serena gets more than she does, irrespective of the fact they have jack s**t to do with helping generate that money, in either the men's or women's comp.

Go have a snowflake sooky somewhere else.


Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jatz14]

She would lose to a trained fighter easily?
Well if she would I'd say she wouldn't of been signed by the biggest MMA company on the planet

Her abilities against trained male fighters is irrelevant to MMA, she will not be fighting them.

It's like saying that they wouldn't sign a man in the lowest weight division if they weren't capable of winning in the top weight division. They do.

Incedentaly, Cyborg at a media event in Japan 5 or 6 years ago did a demo fight with a Japanese reporter, and he got her down and submitted. He had a background in fighting, but wasn't a current fighter. Cyborg lost her first ever fight to another woman a couple of weeks ago.

None of which is relevant as Cyborg is paid to fight women, not men.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk