I suspect this discussion exists on here somewhere and I can’t find it, but has anyone had any meaningful discussions on what gender options to offer on your applications for a new policy? To be as non-political but still inclusive as possible, 3 options of male/female/other seems the most reasonable to me, but there’s still plenty of room for someone to get offended about something. What says the AO?
This is not used for rating in any way, and is just general client info. With the potential for having to ‘prove’ unbiasedness (see Colorado) it seems reasonable to still collect as well.
You can select the gender marker you would like printed on your U.S. passport. The gender you select does not need to match the gender on your supporting documentation such as a birth certificate, previous passport, or state ID. We no longer require medical documentation to change the gender marker on your U.S. passport.
At this time, you can select male (M), female (F), or unspecified or another gender identity (X) as your gender marker if you are applying for a U.S. passport book and selecting routine service. You can apply in-person at a passport acceptance facility or renew by mail.
Beginning in late 2023, you will be able to select X as a marker if you are requesting expedited or urgent travel service. You will also be able to request (X) for the following documents we issue:
Passport cards
Emergency passports printed at embassies and consulates
My rating changed on the renewal after my drivers license update happened. (Without a change in rate because I’m in the age range where gender doesn’t matter)
Can’t use gender here at all. We’ve historically recorded it, but because reasons it’s come up as a question. Thus part 2 of the question was why even bother? Then I had to go all “well we might have to prove we’re not biased at some point so might as well have it available” and then all the fun subsequent convos that stem from that happened, etc. etc.
Is that specific to a state or type of insurance? Or just gender and not sex?
Pretty sure that in most states life and annuities can still use sex, which I assume means assigned sex at birth, although I’m admittedly not certain of that particular detail.
I price voluntary worksite benefits. We don’t vary our rates by gender, but we do use demographics in our assumptions. I believe that’s common practice.
True, for group insurance that’s typical. It’s going to be baked into the experience anyway. Even if a group isn’t experience-rated it’s going to be baked into the experience the insurer used to develop occupation factors.
Even beyond teen years. I got married when I was 22 and my premium was radically lower than my 24 yo husband’s, although they did knock his down a fair amount for being married IIRC. It’s been a while but it seems like it was more than a 2-1 difference, maybe closer to 3-1 before the marriage discount.
Some states absolutely use gender in PPA. I don’t know how it’s usually handled for a legal gender change. If it came up at my place I’d say use their legal gender as happened with @Mountainhawk to make things clear-cut. I could definitely see some “anti-woke” agenda to call Company X and say, “Well what’s the price if I identify as (fe)male, since you let people choose their gender?”
Yeah, that’s why I assume you’d use assigned sex at birth rather than gender identity, especially for pricing. Maybe slightly less critical for reserving but once the birth sex is attached to the policy, probably makes sense to keep using it.
That said, the more I think about it, for auto (where the difference is the greatest) I can easily imagine that gender identity might truly be the more relevant variable. I guess the sex on the birth certificate might be a logical identifier as one presumes that most anti-wokesters are not committed enough to the bit to go to all of that trouble. Maybe a few are, but probably not many.
For life/annuity (my background) the more relevant variable would clearly be assigned sex at birth.
We are talking mortality studies, not politics. Don’t show yourself out, when you’re spitting facts that aren’t obvious. Substitute facts for appearances, particularly with this crowd.
I would absolutely have assumed that gender at birth was correlated with life tables, with the assumption that the underlying genetics were what mattered most, with the further assumption that this is because genetics dictate a big part of mortality. I think that’s a reasonable thing to conclude, barring actual facts.
Conversely, with auto, I’d expect, again barring any facts, that behaviour matters more and that, I don’t know the term, ‘your chosen gender’ (yeah, I know that’s wrong) has the most impact. To jest, I’d guess that you drive like a woman and always have.
Those are reasonable conclusions, and if they’re wrong, they should be shown as such so that the ignorant among us don’t walk around with the wrong perceptions.
Would love to see a link to something that shows on the life side that shows what you’ve stated.
The wording for passports seems to be the simplest and most inclusive, since it’s clear that the selection isn’t dependent on assigned sex at birth. Another option would be to separate sex (M/F/X) and gender (cis/trans/X) but that seems more complicated/intrusive for info you’re not using.