this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
153 points (99.4% liked)
Tech
2184 readers
82 users here now
A community for high quality news and discussion around technological advancements and changes
Things that fit:
- New tech releases
- Major tech changes
- Major milestones for tech
- Major tech news such as data breaches, discontinuation
Things that don't fit
- Minor app updates
- Government legislation
- Company news
- Opinion pieces
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And who would use it?
Like 1/100th of the number who use the women-only option?
That's not the point, though.
I understand and support there being an option for woman-only drivers. It's unfortunte that it's required, but women has to deal with a lot of harrasment and I don't see a reason why not provide a safer option for them. (I'm not implying that creep women exist, or that men don't have to deal with similar problems, but it's simply way less common).
I don't agree with this lawsuit, but adding a men-only option would solve the issue from legal standpoint. You are not giving someone advantage over their gender, both have the same options, and it's up to the customer/market to decide which one they preffer. The people suing Lyft for providing an option that's unfortunately required because women have to deal with a lot of creeps can get fucked, and this is the best way how to do it.
If you replace sex with race you'll realise that you're completely wrong. There is no legal reason to choose your driver's gender, just like there is no reason to choose your driver's race. The fact that some drivers harass women is because Uber and Lyft don't screen drivers sufficiently to protect passengers.
Hmm, you are right, replacing gender with race does make a good point I didn't realize. "I want to be able to choose a white driver because I wouldn't feel safe with a driver of different race" is basically the same point as with gender, but sounds way more wrong and it shows pretty well why is the whole idea a bad one.
At least I'm struggling to find any arguments for the gender version (which is not a bad thing, mind you), if I take this race example into account. You are right that way more rigorous screening of drivers with 0-strike policy would be a lot better than this.
In general this might work for a lot of similar situations, treating gender as a race. I'll keep that in mind, because it makes sense and I never really though about it that way. Thanks!
But this is not a race issue. This is a gender and sexual one. Dragging race into this is only a convenient excuse to make it something that it's not, so that you can argue against it by using a false equivalent analogy.
Do we have statistics on any one ethnicity of drivers harassing some other ethnicity of passengers so often to generate upwards of 2,300 lawsuits? I doubt it. The only motivation behind this is the male sexual drive.
Those stats literally exist.
https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-crime-statistics-by-race/
I could easily justify asking for a different race driver to prevent the high same race victimisation rate. Unless I was Asian then I would prefer an Asian driver.
Actually Asian crimes are so low everyone who l should just pick Asian drivers to significantly reduce their risk of being victimised.
Also your framing of this gendered violence as caused by "male sexual drive" is dangerous misandry. Male on female violence is a cultural issue caused by people like you accepting that male sexual violence is an inherent and unavoidable part of being male (i.e. rape culture). In reality it's exactly like speeding, as long as we treat it as unavoidable and natural it's going to be prevalent everywhere. Yet many countries have almost eliminated speeding and the pedestrian and cyclists deaths it causes through cultural and structural changes. Same goes for countries that have a fraction of north american rape statistics.
We need to stop accepting sexual violence by anyone against anyone. One of those steps is to actually screen and punish drivers who sexually harass customers. That's what the 2300 lawsuits are about, ride share companies routinely ignore sexual assault reporting and empower sexual victimization of their clients. The other is to stop accepting that "boys will be boys" includes rape and sexual assault. None of those steps is acting like the only way to stop rape is to hide women from men.
Your logic empowers rapists. The "what was she wearing" defense will soon become the "what was her driver sex preference" defense and lawyers will start arguing that women who don't select "female driver" are being promiscuous and looking to have sex with a male driver. Why else would they not pick "female driver" after all?
For ride-share drivers? Where? Those are general statistics for the general population. Why are these relevant for a skewed sample of the population? And more importantly, how are those relevant for places like my country, which happens to be a lot more ethnically homogeneous, but that still sees these sexual assaults happening?
Is it, though, if the statistics for sexual crimes based on sex consistently turn up at a 9:1 ratio for males vs females? That's a whole magnitude of difference that you can't ignore. And this is the Mexican government putting out these statistics for cases of sexual assault and rape at a national level. The ones I've seen for the US are very similar.
And yet the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male. Have I been groped by women? Yes. Can I be raped by a woman? Of course. But the fact of the matter is that I'm way more likely to be a victim of sexual assault by other men, and I have been multiple times throughout the years. You can't deny this is the overall trend in every society that has ever existed.
The fact of the matter is that male sexual violence is a part of many species' biology, including our own. Do you really think that rape is not a viable reproductive strategy in several species? It's time to face reality, and that's not necessarily mysandrist despite all this pearl-clutching. If men didn't do it disproportionately, we wouldn't be having this exchange. Simple as that.
Only if you frame it under the tired adage of “boys will be boys” as if I'm the one saying that. That's all you. My POV is based on academic publishing that I've read throughout the years.
And your solution is?
They used to have similar studies to show that black people had lower IQ.
Sexual assault is a crime. Criminals commit crimes. This isn't supposed to be a "Men against Women" thing. It's criminals vs. victims. Of course men will commit more VIOLENT crimes like SA than women, men have a biological strength advantage which really helps commit violent crimes. I don't deny biology.
But if we act like it's more than that, that men are inherently going to sexually assault women and there is nothing we can do about it other than hide women, we're accepting that sexual assault as an unavoidable part of everyday life instead of treating it like the unacceptable crime it is.
No, because you're imagining that that's what the report said based on what you want to think and are drawing historical connections to a situation that is only superficially similar.
And yet it keeps happening at a disproportionate rate. It seems to me that you say you don't want to deny the biology, but don't hesitate to deny the behavior.
Mind you, I'm not saying that all men are rapists because I'm also a man and I know that's not true. I'm saying the great majority of sexual assaulters are men, so let's address that by giving people who are hesitant a choice. I think we can both agree on that, no?