All I'm hearing is carve-outs and exceptions. "But when I do it, it's ok."
If you're excluding people based on sex/gender it's discrimination. We either care about sex discrimination everywhere, or we don't care about it anywhere.
All I’m hearing is bad-faith nonsense built on intentionally ignoring the concept of civil rights.
Why go on the internet and do this? Honestly. You know that your line of argumentation doesn’t even remotely care about being serious, yet you make it anyway. Why? To waste my time?
What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"?
Put yourself in her shoes. I don't mean this metaphorically. Put on women's clothes, makeup, and order an uber. In the time it takes for it to arrive, notice the thoughts that appear in your mind and get back to me.
Rather than their argument being a joke, you are misunderstanding the argument.
> What should a woman in this position do? Look at the options and think to herself, "I could choose a woman driver, but I won't because that is discriminatory to men and I should accept the risk"?
Nobody has argued this. This is a straw man you constructed so you can knock it over and claim victory.
Then create a better man. What are those claiming "sex discrimination" suggesting women do? Clarify. I'm happy to accept a better model. Correct me, please.
Well, obviously women should use this filter to discriminate for their safety. That's related to, but beside, the point others are making. Others are referring to Uber's policy, irrespective of the decisions made by their individual customers. (I mean, maybe some others are saying stupid shit, but there's at least some smart shit one can read, too.)
The policy for Uber to add this filter is a problem because it means they put a bandaid over the issue instead of solving it by being more strict in their hiring. Adding this filter means, to the corporate brain, they've "solved" the problem and therefore need to spend no more money on it. Frustratingly, that seems to be in a way which perpetuates the problem, when Uber could otherwise train their employees (whom they could also interview prior to hiring...), and even take appropriate action against the ones who act against their policy.
It's worth noting that tavavex went over this in their reply to your top-level comment; their point had never been that individual choices made by women are the reason this is a bad policy. In fact, a good summary of the more reasonable negative sentiment was included at the end of said comment:
> The checkbox itself is fine by me, but it's just them [Uber] taping over an issue that stems from the way they do business.
Yes, I realize women face real dangers in car share hiring. The solution isn't just to then just blindly discriminate against random, perfectly nice men.
> Feel free to share a better solution so we can replace this one.
> Then we can argue the merits of solution A vs solution B. I'd much rather be having that conversation instead of the solution A vs no solution.
You should be aware that these statements come off as extremely obtuse. A solution was shared at the top of the thread; albeit by a different commenter, but it makes sense that the second commenter would have the same suggestion in mind. You've not actually discussed the merits despite ample opportunity, instead agreeing that it's a better solution, but, because it's not been implemented, this solution is still necessary for the time being.
What you've not done is argued for why that should be the case, as opposed to the bare assertion that it is. It seems that would be beneficial to your point of view in this discussion, given that others seem to be saying that it should not be.
