July 27, 2018

NDP “bigots” question man self-identifying as woman for lower insurance rates

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

An Alberta man, identified only as David, wanted to buy a new car.


Due to different rates of insurance for men and women based on risk, crash rates and all those things the insurance industry takes into account before setting your yearly premium, poor David would be paying through the nose — over $4,500 per year — to insure the car of his dreams, a Chevy Cruze.

Sadly, male privilege never crept into his insurance rates, but David was undeterred. He changed his gender on paper so he could pay $1,100 less per year for his car insurance.

David wrote in a Reddit post:

“I am now a woman. I now pay $1,100 less for auto insurance. I won. The end.”

David told the CBC that she didn't change her gender to ridicule trans people but to save a buck. And I say good for her!

This is what happens when the government reduces my female biological sex to a feeling while the insurance industry still uses our old friends, empirical data, and statistics based on sex differences and behaviours, to set rates and measure risk.

Oddly, those questioning David's motives and legitimacy are the loudest proponents of gender fluidity and the biggest advocates for making it easier for people to change their gender based on their feelings, ironically including Alberta’s Status Of Women Minister, Stephanie McLean.

McLean mis-gendered David in a tweet that accused her of perjury. What a bigot!

It seems she’s upset that he reduced sexual identity to a momentary feeling and a piece of paper. Huh?

Personally, I don't care how people identify. It has absolutely nothing to do with me as long as someone doesn’t make it have anything to do with me, my church or my children.

However, if you’re smart enough to turn the government's ridiculous policies back on them and save a little money at the same time, you can identify as a genius.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-07-30 12:07:13 -0400
Albert Maga commented 10 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson but someone else has the right to tell us to address them by their preferred pronoun?"

It shouldn’t even be a question. Why wouldn’t you? You already do. You wouldn’t deliberately misgender a man with female pronouns, would you? The question is why you feel the need to only respect that within categories you feel comfortable with. Does your discomfort with acknowledging their identity supersede their right to have their own identity?

If I ask you to use female pronouns to refer to me, would you respect that? Perhaps the gender implied by my pseudonym is deliberately misleading. You’d probably be fine with it even though it would be entirely based upon a written request with no actual biological verification. I find it interesting that several posters seem just fine with doing that, despite stating often adamant opposition to using pronouns upon request.
commented 2018-07-30 03:59:36 -0400
Good thing I don’t want to get a sex change operation.
commented 2018-07-30 01:47:28 -0400
Andrew Stephenson but someone else has the right to tell us to address them by their preferred pronoun?
commented 2018-07-30 00:15:21 -0400
Yes, it is up to you to “live with it”. It really only impacts the people that want to change it and causes no harm to you, since it doesn’t affect your status in any way.

If you’re upset about the insurance companies discriminating, then file a human rights complaint. You’ll likely win.

I don’t see why it would bear any relevance to firearms acquisition certificates. When your official documentation changes, you would have the right to change that one too. The same way you do if you move or change your name.
commented 2018-07-29 16:13:36 -0400
So, the “cure” is not to get rid of this absurdity but just “Live With It”?… By the way, why not try that kind of absurdity when applying for you Firearms Acquisition Certificate and see where that gets you…
commented 2018-07-29 16:03:32 -0400
I agree with the “absurdity” but the absurdity lies in the initial condition, not the reaction to it.

Just because you feel it’s “absurd” that people can change their paperwork that easily, doesn’t mean you have the right to tell them not to. It’s their lives, and they can do what they want. Insurance companies will just have to adjust.
commented 2018-07-29 02:35:39 -0400 · Flag
That’s right Ms. Stephenson “it’s not like changing his official gender changes his actual collision risk”… But it does change the premium paid and that is the point of this game… Being able to claim your “gender of convenience” points to the absurdity of the evasion game… No, actually all provincial insurance agencies, whether SGI in Saskatchewan or ICBC in British Columbia are well aware of actual statistics, but if they are forced to “fold” higher risk categories into the general insurance pool then once again the lower risks pick up the tab for the higher risks… Classic socialism… Your personal driving record must obviously further inflect the premiums you pay but it does not mask the benefit given under such systems to high risk groups… And the only “reality” in this socialist pricing of insurance is that nobody can deny, at least not yet, the risk posed by being on a motorcycle… But if so, why does this actuarial reality not also apply to all other drivers?…
commented 2018-07-28 19:49:40 -0400
Are gender based premiums that effective if its’ so easy to get around them? It’s not like changing his official gender changes his actual collision risk, which is why it’s so ridiculous that that’s used as a criterion. Again, the government making it simple to change gender on paper is not the problem here.

Not just Europe – in Canada, provincial insurers in Sask. and Man use neither gender nor age as a criterion for insurance premiums; SGI has no geographic categories and MPI only does Winnipeg vs. all else. You have a basic premium determined by vehicle age and model, and the sole determinant beyond that is your driving record. Drive well? You get discounts. Drive badly, you get penalties. That seems pretty simple and bases premiums on observation, not speculation.

Motorcycles are a specific insurance category.
commented 2018-07-28 18:30:27 -0400
And I suppose the reality of those “crotch rocket” motorcyclists, who sooner or later wind up spread across the bumper of some 18-wheeler, should be ignored also?…
commented 2018-07-28 16:02:29 -0400
“Gender discrimination” is practiced by realistic insurers because of actuarial risk assessment based on life’s realities… Everything from age to sex to statistics goes into it, plus of course the personal “record” of the person seeking insurance… If the Europeans want to ignore that reality – as they ignore many of today’s realities – then that is their attempt to piss into the wind… And if I was a middle-aged woman, who only drives to go shopping, why should I pay the same premiums as some 18-year-old male yahoo “burning rubber” every time he gets behind the wheel?….
commented 2018-07-28 12:58:14 -0400
The actual question is, not whether the existence of this loophole is strange (or whatever adjective you prefer) but rather, why we still tolerate gender discrimination from insurers. The Europeans outlawed that practice.

Good on him (he prefers male pronouns despite his official status) for finding a loophole, but the real question is why he should need to.
commented 2018-07-28 09:04:50 -0400
Equal rights at it’s very best!!! Kudos the the guy….er……girl. LOL!!!
commented 2018-07-28 01:54:07 -0400
This actually has interesting possibilities given the fundamental absurdity of it all… So if you can “self identify” to get lower insurance rates, or use the other gender’s bathroom or change room at will, is there a TIME LIMIT to playing this game?… I mean, can you “self identify” to another sex for say the duration of a track and field event or a soccer game, and then “re-self identify”? And if not, why not?…Once you start playing this ultimate B.S. gender game the possibilities are endless… And Minister McLean should watch her mouth lest she be taken to face a Human Rights Council….
commented 2018-07-28 00:32:41 -0400
Well well, Mx. Stephanie McLean what to do now?

When I first learned of this I almost p’d myself laughing.

So who really are the biggest bigots?

Good reporting Gunner.
commented 2018-07-27 22:40:47 -0400
Very good point. Here is a h-it, versus a sh-it who knows how to interpret the legal description of gender. Good for sh-it!
Whatever happened with Lauren Southern’s redefinition of heris’s registering as a man?
Damn, this is getting complicated trying to describe a person these days.
commented 2018-07-27 22:01:11 -0400
DON’T FORGET LOREAN SOUTHERN IS REGISTERED AS A MAN
commented 2018-07-27 20:47:23 -0400
Milk it for all it’s worth. Turn the tables. I drive my wife 90 % of the time and my insured vehicle sits. So who’s more likely to have an incident? Why am I paying for her and my dormant vehicle?
commented 2018-07-27 20:01:23 -0400
T-shirts with gender fluidity slogans on them are now available in both men’s and women’s sizes.
commented 2018-07-27 19:00:01 -0400
It has nothing to do with risk. It has to do with men being forced to pay for women’s insurance.
commented 2018-07-27 18:58:04 -0400
Well said, Sheila!

The socialists just don’t think their crackpot ideals all the way through to its inevitable screwed up conclusion before they cram their sick agenda through into law. It is good to see someone turn it back around on them.