I imagine there also will be sex discrimination lawsuits. It just isn't legal to make decisions while employed based on whether or not you're a woman or likely as a customer as well.
> It just isn't legal to make decisions while employed based on whether or not you're a woman
It is legal as a customer, and as an employee. It’s not as an employer or a business offering a public accommodation in general, but even there there are some exceptions; whether this situation falls into them seems likely to get litigated.
It is if it's a "bona fide job requirement", which it possibly could be. To take an extreme case, TSA agents only screen passengers of the same gender, so it'd be fair game to discriminate based on gender if for whatever reason the staffing ratios aren't balanced.
I really doubt it's as simple as “just not legal”; most anti-discrimination laws allow for reasonable exceptions, especially when women's safety is at stake.
There may still be lawsuits, but it's not obvious that Uber would lose.
It's not even clear that men are at all disadvantaged by current proposal, given that the preference isn't guaranteed to be honored, so female drivers most likely will still be expected to pick up male passengers. In that case, there is essentially no scenario where a man is refused service because of his sex, and it seems questionable whether there is any grounds for legal action at all.
Are drivers required to provide sex assigned at birth? If not, we might see male drivers conveniently identifying as women to circumvent this (presumably to minimize wait times between rides). Although I guess they'd get canceled on a lot.
I think the attack vector is traditionally opportunistic. Horny driver suddenly has a vulnerable woman in his car and they're in a secluded area, boom there's an assault.
Any driver who is so premeditated about his assault plans that he would sign up to Uber pretending to be a woman probably has easier and more direct ways to access victims that are less likely to blow up in his face.
The premise here is not that men would "pretend to be women" (and sooner or later, a trans activist will decide that this charge has been levied at the wrong target) as part of a "premeditated assault plan".
The premise is that men would do it either in order to protest the policy, or in order to retain access to business that they had before.
My partner was sexually assaulted in a Lyft. Background checks only detect people who have been previously accused or convicted; they don't protect against people who haven't been caught yet.
At the core of it, a woman is getting into a vehicle with a stranger.
I rarely use these services, so I don't know the facts, but multiple times I have heard a woman say she is afraid to give a bad rating or report because the driver picked her up at her home, so he might return. I assume drivers can't see who is reporting/rating, but the fear is that they can use basic logic to make an assumption about who it was.
The pain of having an attractive wife or female partner. Some guys are so aggressive a-holes that more decent women end up shying away from men in general.
Imagine being hit easily 10-50x a day, every effin' day. Work, street, public transport, online, everywhere. Guys really think inviting pretty ladies 'for a coffee' aint something they heard 100x that week already.
Dated one such lady, the trauma and trust issues were real. Either they get spolied for attention or get traumatized. Everybody loses.
Discriminating against all men because some men are violent criminals is like discriminating against all black people because some black people are violent criminals.
One type of stereotyping and discrimination is socially acceptable. The other is not.
Classifying and disadvantaging a huge group of people because of the actions of a tiny fraction of that group is unjust.
It is my personal belief that neither type of discrimination should be acceptable.
I talked with a woman uber driver in Ann Arbor. She was telling me that she lives in Toledo but drives up to Ann Arbor/Romulus (DTW airport) because the customers are safer and overall nicer while in Toledo she made it sound like everyone's an asshole.
I'm curious how that would play out over time. Since it would be male drivers who have no intention of harassing/assaulting female passengers that take this option, would you get a "Dead Sea" effect of proportionally more predators being left in the "accepts riders of any sex" group? Over time this could create an incredibly sex-segregated service.
While I can kinda buy the argument for why men may want to do this, it is also complicated and how far do we go. (saying this as a guy for the record)
Is it that you are either free for all or you can limit to your own sex or a sex of your choice? So could men say they only want woman? What about trans people.
Do we start adding in religion, political affiliation, race, etc etc etc.
Woman not feeling safe with unknown (and largely unvetted) Male drivers (or passengers) is a valid concern. It feels more like a bandaid than an actual fix, but it is an "Easy" solution to a problem. The ideal should be that we don't need this, not that we add in more filters like this. But for many reasons we as a society are not there.
> Woman not feeling safe with unknown (and largely unvetted) Male drivers (or passengers) is a valid concern. It feels more like a bandaid than an actual fix, but it is an "Easy" solution to a problem. The ideal should be that we don't need this, not that we add in more filters like this. But for many reasons we as a society are not there.
Instead of building trust and ensuring that all Uber drivers are trustworthy drivers - they add option to avoid "potentially" less trustworthy drivers. Latter option is cheaper.
sigh : Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Oh, I can assure you that there are many lawsuits filed for gender discrimination against men in workspaces, some of which are notable and made headlines. If lawsuits can happen, I don't see why it is a problem just want to discuss the topic here.
This should work in all directions. Male passengers should be able to request male drivers only. Male drivers can request male passengers to avoid any hassle of female passengers.
Also, lesbians can be just as predatory towards females.
>The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
IANAL, but I don't think this changes the legality of the discrimination against male independent contractors, because the riders are employing them.
My understanding is that women-only gyms typically operate as 501(c)7 nonprofit private clubs, which are allowed to discriminate. It would be effectively impossible to rework that structure into a ride-sharing app.
Readit News
Uber either:
- lets the market equilibrium naturally settle (meaning women requesting woman drivers "pay a safety premium" - hard PR sell)
- manually suppresses the difference, creating distortions that I can't immediately imagine or articulate.
Same on the driver's side.
Pay more, or wait longer.
There's no avoiding simple economics.
It is legal as a customer, and as an employee. It’s not as an employer or a business offering a public accommodation in general, but even there there are some exceptions; whether this situation falls into them seems likely to get litigated.
When I have gotten a massage or gone to the doctor (and not seen my regular) I have been asked if I would prefer to be with a male or anyone.
There may still be lawsuits, but it's not obvious that Uber would lose.
It's not even clear that men are at all disadvantaged by current proposal, given that the preference isn't guaranteed to be honored, so female drivers most likely will still be expected to pick up male passengers. In that case, there is essentially no scenario where a man is refused service because of his sex, and it seems questionable whether there is any grounds for legal action at all.
It would be nice to select LGBTQ friendly rides for example.
I also wonder if you transition, can you change your "sex" on Uber? how would that work and how would they prevent abuse?
Any driver who is so premeditated about his assault plans that he would sign up to Uber pretending to be a woman probably has easier and more direct ways to access victims that are less likely to blow up in his face.
The premise is that men would do it either in order to protest the policy, or in order to retain access to business that they had before.
At the core of it, a woman is getting into a vehicle with a stranger.
Deleted Comment
It’s absolutely insane to me. Worst I’ve ever had in an uber were geriatric drivers who probably shouldn’t have had their license still.
Imagine being hit easily 10-50x a day, every effin' day. Work, street, public transport, online, everywhere. Guys really think inviting pretty ladies 'for a coffee' aint something they heard 100x that week already.
Dated one such lady, the trauma and trust issues were real. Either they get spolied for attention or get traumatized. Everybody loses.
Dead Comment
One type of stereotyping and discrimination is socially acceptable. The other is not.
Classifying and disadvantaging a huge group of people because of the actions of a tiny fraction of that group is unjust.
It is my personal belief that neither type of discrimination should be acceptable.
I'm having a hard time imagining how this topic of conversation would even come up?
Deleted Comment
Is it that you are either free for all or you can limit to your own sex or a sex of your choice? So could men say they only want woman? What about trans people.
Do we start adding in religion, political affiliation, race, etc etc etc.
Woman not feeling safe with unknown (and largely unvetted) Male drivers (or passengers) is a valid concern. It feels more like a bandaid than an actual fix, but it is an "Easy" solution to a problem. The ideal should be that we don't need this, not that we add in more filters like this. But for many reasons we as a society are not there.
From a purely logical standpoint, if this type of discrimination is tolerated, others should likely also be tolerated.
If other types of discrimination are not tolerated, then this type of discrimination should not be tolerated either.
It's no different than white people not wanting black drivers, and Uber supporting that.
Instead of building trust and ensuring that all Uber drivers are trustworthy drivers - they add option to avoid "potentially" less trustworthy drivers. Latter option is cheaper.
Dead Comment
And how is this provocative? It seems to be a pretty simple question/observation about the core of the matter
Also, lesbians can be just as predatory towards females.
>The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/sex-based-discrimination
But seriously, wouldn't this service offering fall under whatever legal loop hole exists for women only gyms?
My understanding is that women-only gyms typically operate as 501(c)7 nonprofit private clubs, which are allowed to discriminate. It would be effectively impossible to rework that structure into a ride-sharing app.