> But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women There are two main lines of thoughts

> But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women There are two main lines of thoughts in regard to this. The first is that no, that is not discriminating against women since the actor (in this case, the insurance company) is not taking gender into account when calculating the premium. The other line of thought is equality under the law is impossible to achieve because people are not initially equal to begin with. The common quote people use to describe this is "The Law's 'Majestic Equality'" from Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.". Since discrimination law is a law following common law theory and philosophy, it generally ignores the objection that the second line of thought brings up.