this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
153 points (99.4% liked)
Tech
2184 readers
101 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
That doesn't make any sense. Can male strippers sue that there's not as big demand for them as there is for female strippers? I don't think so. (This is just a metaphor, I have no idea how big the male stripper business is, but that's not the point, I'm sure you could come up with a similar example where gender is an advantage, becasue there's simply smaller demand for the other gender).
Gender is a bone fide job requirement for strippers. That's not the case for taxi drivers.
The gender "requirement" for strippers is based on customer preference, if Uber customers prefer a gender for drivers then the same is true here
Ok, lets say I prefer only male customer service representatives, front desk receptionists, only male grocery store check out clerks, only male baristas, hairstylists, tattoo artists, auto mechanics, chefs/cooks, restaurant servers, daycare providers, dog walkers, whatever.
Now, I only use businesses where my 'consumer preference' is 'respected', and there are so many others who have similarly strong preferences to me, that businesses begin to either gender bias their hiring, or offer specific locations that are gender locked, or offer me some kind of filter for non location based / scheduled / on demand enterprises.
Am I being sexist, or am I expressing my consumer preferences?
Are the businesses being sexist, or are they aligning business practices with consumer expectations?
What if femboys, queer men, trans men, well, they're not men to me, I don't want to see any of them, so I stop using businesses who hire them, or at least allow me some option to avoid them?
What if I also only want to interact with white, christian men?
Who are 25 to 45 years old?
... How do you draw the lines between 'businesses reflecting consumer demand' and 'the inherent structure of society is bigoted and segregated'?
Why do you draw those lines, which lines do you draw or not draw?
None of those scenarios puts the customer at greater risk of being a victim of a violent or sexual crime, none of them put the employee in question alone with the customer in an unmonitored vehicle, easy line to draw
... A tattoo artist or masseuse could not more easily sexually assault me than a grocery store clerk or dog walker?
What about a therapist vs an accountant, doing in office consults with either?
How about a bus driver or a pilot crew, flight attendants?
I am assuming the line you are trying to draw is something like ... being in a confined space, and having less control over your ability to egress.
But you didn't actually draw that line, so that's just a guess on my part.
You just made a dubious claim and then used that to justify an undefined rule.
If you'd like to actually try to draw a line, that would be nice.
Tattoo artists do not generally have their customers alone in an unmonitored vehicle with the ability to relocate them easily against their will, neither do masseuses or any of your other examples. Weak comparisons, weak argument.
Unmonitored vehicle?
Either literally all or nearly all Uber/Lyft cars have cameras in them, for driver safety, for recording potential accidents, for being able to go the tape when some kind of customer dispute happens.
And I mean yeah, a tattoo artist of masseuse doesn't have their work area in a car, but, you are in a constrained setting, you're already on a bed/table, likely some degree of half naked... wouldn't really be that hard to take someone from that level of restrained to more restrained and/or sedated, then just actually throw them in a car, or a basement, whatever.
Cool story
It is already no problem for you to choose a male tattoo artist, a male hairstylist and a male dogwalker. Whereever you choose a single employee to work closely with you and where you are in a somewhat vulnerable position you can already choose. If for some reason you feel more at ease with male doctors, tattoo artists or hairstylists or massagist, noone is stopping you from only booking with a man.
Whereever you can be in a vulnerable position with an employee it makes sense that you can choose who that person is.
Ok so you also seem to be describing 'being in a vulnerable position' as a, or the 'line'.
Can you define that explicitly, you know, as if it were part of a law?
I will note that tons of people have anxiety/trauma complexes that trigger in public, or in private, with people.of specific sexes, genders, races, expressed religions, etc... so... are all of those things fair game for things that can cause people to feel 'in a vulnerable position'?
Some people don't really even have any specific personal trauma, but are just bigotted and some way, and would tell you that... certain people with certain attributes in certain situations make them feel 'vulnerable'.
I would say basically if the person is working on/with your body or if they have some form of physical power over you which is the case if you are getting in their car (and they could in theory lock you in/drive you somewhere else).
It is e.g. totally fine if a black person would prefer another black person as a hair stylist because they feel they know more about black hair. Same goes for a white person prefering a white hair stylist. At a certain point you should probably ask yourself if you can still participate in society if your demands get too detailed. I would draw the line where the interaction is very unpersonal and takes place in a public setting. Everybody can have a one-minute exchange with any chashier. But as soon as the employee is going to work on your body or put you in a position where you can't easily leave it's fair to choose who works with you.
I know a lot of people who have a gender preference when it comes to doctors. Not just gynecologists, but any. I know people who'd only go to a male or female massage therapist. I know asians who'd only go to an asian hairdresser. These are all choices people make every day, we just don't notice because we don't filter it through an app.
As for bigotted people, I don't think you'll change their mind by forcing them to interact with you. If I was e.g. a hindu driver I might even feel safer knowing that people who hate my religion can choose not to be in my car. The safety concern goes both ways.
The gender you're attracted to isn't a choice or a "preference".
We're not discussing preference as in attraction, we're discussing the preference of women customers for women drivers due to the significantly greater incidence of violence and sexual assault commited by men specifically towards women, which is also not a choice
Sounds like Uber and Lyft should stop hiring drivers who sexually harass customers.
When I said "bone fide" I meant that attraction isn't a choice. In the case of an Uber driver gender preference is a choice.
Based on your "customer preference" logic could I also say my preference is race based because I found a similar statistic? Would that justify Uber allowing race selection?
We have laws that protect people from discrimination on protected grounds (race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc...) not because there are no legitimate statistical reasons for people to have a preference, but because the damage to society caused by discrimination based on characteristics you can't change about yourself far exceeds these benefits.
You keep saying "bone fide" in relation to strippers when you mean "~~bonafide~~" bonerfied.
Hey I completely agree with that!
Maybe instead of punishing their entire male driver base, 99.9% of whom have not sexually assaulted a passenger, they could adopt some screening standards, have some regular, mandatory instructional courses with scored tests at the end, do some background checks!
Preferring not to be assaulted is not a choice, the reality that men are more likely to commit these crimes is also not a choice, and the fact that the specific scenario of driver and lone passenger is much higher risk is also extremely relevant. It would be nice if Uber cared enough to try screening their employees more carefully, but offloading cost and responsibility onto someone else is more profitable so I wouldn't count on it happening any time soon. You could possibly find a statistic to support being a bigot, but it would definitely be bullshit. International crime statistics and legal & sociological analysis directly contradicts racially biased US crime stats, whereas they instead fully confirm this specific gender bias in crime stats. One is true, the others are not. Allowing women to make choices that affect their safety based on verifiable facts is entirely reasonable, I don't particularly care if men find it discriminatory.
Enjoy being a rape culture supporter I guess
Lol try harder loser