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
For some reason I got my post removed last time I mentioned this, but what if Uber had a feature that let you select the race of your driver because "some riders don't feel comfortable with black drivers". That would clearly be wrong right?? It's the same thing but with gender I don't know how people were defending this originally.
This is a fascinating issue and let me bring in an international perspective. In Tokyo, Japan, there are some train cars that are only for women and girls. This is because real numbers of men will grow women and girls on the train. Now the best solution would be to arrest and lock up all of the gropers. For various reasons, that's somehow difficult to do. In the meantime, we have these cars that are only for women and girls. So, do you take away the cars and tell those women and girls that they just need to be victims? Is that really what you want to say to them and their families?
Of course, Japan does not have the same constitution as the United States, so the legal aspect is different. But that's why I'm seriously asking the above question. What's the moral answer given the above set of facts?
Now I don't have any data on Uber. Is there actually an increased risk with male drivers? I haven't seen any data, but I haven't looked for any data either. I'm not sure how similar this situation is with that one.
It's a fair point to bring up. An even more basic example is just the concept of female locker rooms and bathrooms, or "lactation rooms" in airports and schools. Those spaces are not created specifically with protecting women in mind, but that is still an important part of why they exist. Here is why I think those examples (and female only traincars) are ok and being able to request the gender of your driver isn't: there is no harmed party in the above examples. If some women move to a special train car, there will be that much more space in the other train cars for men. As long as the number of female-only train cars is set properly, nobody is harmed or even slightly inconvenienced. On the other hand, if drivers cannot find work because riders are requesting only women that is clearly harmful.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with racial segregation in the United States but ultimately it was struck down by courts on the conclusion that, despite the claims of services for whites and blacks being "separate but equal", they were in fact discriminatory against black people. Whenever you are segregating or treating genders/races differently, you have to be extremely careful that you are not harming anyone.
Is there a race that is statistically more violent then the others? So no base for excluduing them. But males are significantly more violent than other genders.
So there is your difference.
...
...
...White supremacists use this argument verbatim against certain ethnicities. It's literally the poster child for statistic-fluffed racism.
Do I have to link the meme or are going to figure this out on your own?...
In the United States, black people are statistically far more violent than for example white people, to use your terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Now, there are various socioeconomic factors at work here and most of them point back to historical and present mistreatment (mainly by white people), but setting all that aside- if you just want to get an uber and you are worried about being assaulted by driver, those underlying causes are irrelevant.
Again - I do not think Uber should let you filter by race - that's clearly wrong. But I think filtering by gender is just as invalid.
How much of that is due to conviction rates? As a middle-aged white guy I can get away with shitloads more than any black man.
Some of it, I'm sure, but the fact that black homicide victim rates are in line with black conviction rates does point to a higher underlying level of crime. The vast majority (80-90%) of homicides of white and black people are white-on-white and black-on-black.
Not sure what you're saying with that last sentence. Hardly surprising that violence is intraracial when violence almost always comes from someone you know.
My point is that it shows the homicide conviction rates for both black and white people are both roughly what you would expect, based on a) the homicide victimization rates and b) the percentage of crime that is intrarace. Setting aside the biases of the judicial system, if X number of black people were killed by homicide then you can get a pretty good guess of how many black people committed homicides. The fact that this expected number of black homicide victims lines up with the number of black people convicted is a good sign, at the very least, that black people are not being convicted for crimes committed by white people, and therefore the ratio of homicides per capita between black and white people is roughly accurate.
Difference is the racially biased crime statistics produced in the US are the direct result of racially biased law enforcement and judicial systems, whereas the significantly higher rate of sex crimes and violence by men vs women is a verifiable fact substantiated by similar statistics in countries around the world. One is a lie, the other is not.
Are you suggesting that over 80% of white homicide victims go unreported, or that over 80% of black homicide victims are made up by law enforcement, or that over 80% of black homicide victims are actually victims of white-on-black crime? No combination of those three seems remotely plausible.
US crime statistics are unreliable specifically in regard to race due to the extremely well documented presence of organized white supremacist groups in US law enforcement and the judicial system, you might want to do some reading and rethink what you consider plausible before attempting to discuss the topic
That's weak as hell. There is no credible evidence that completely refutes an 8x overrepresentation in homicide crime rates and victim rates. Now if you want to make an argument that this is really a division of class and not race, and the numbers only differ along racial lines because black people suffer much more economic hardship, sure i think thats a valid argument. But the numbers are still what they are. Over 12,000 black people died by homicide in the US in 2023 and they weren't all killed by the Klan and police officers.
Cool numbers you got there
The other is also a lie if you consider the stigma against men for reporting sexual assault and abuse by women.
Statistics are only as good as the data included.
Underreporting of sex crimes by male victims of male assailants might possibly skew the ratio slightly, but underreporting by male victims also applies to male assailants, available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that men are more likely to commit sex crimes and violent crimes, and unlike biased racial statistics there's no evidence whatsoever for the same sort of individual and institutional motive to skew them. We have outright racists in law enforcement verifiably & deliberately targeting minority communities, we have no evidence to suggest similar for men vs women in regard to law enforcement/crime stats.
You don't get it, do you?
So long as there is a stigma on males reporting, or emotionally opening up, about assaults by females, then not a single gender statistic can be trusted, or used as an objective measure.
"Available evidence". Available evidence. Available is the key word.
There's a big difference between saying that violent/sexual crimes committed by women are underreported and claiming that the gap in reporting would come anywhere close to making up the difference in rates of commission of these crimes between men and women, the former is verifiably true and the latter is extremely not verifiable and almost certainly not true
I absolutely believe the gap is virtually none-existent. If taken into account how basically no sexual assault is reported for men because nobody takes them seriously, and how even just looking at a woman can already be considered sexual assault, we have a monumental disparity in our society.
Giving any credence to statistics before this is solved compounds certain issues that shouldn't exist, and aids those with ulterior motives. If you adhere to these like you seem to, you're part of the problem.
Not helping your credibility
Credibility to who? You?
"Just looking at a woman can be called sexual assault" is a ridiculous assertion, legally inaccurate and indicative that you're either stupid or lying
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Anything's possible when you make shit up kiddo