289
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Lyft is introducing a new feature that lets women and non-binary riders choose a preference to match with drivers of the same gender.

The ride-hailing company said it was a “highly requested feature” in a blog post Tuesday, saying the new feature allows women and non-binary people to “feel that much more confident” in using Lyft and also hopefully encourage more women to sign up to be drivers to access its “flexible earning opportunities.”

The service, called “Women+ Connect,” is rolling out in the coming months. Riders can turn on the option in the Lyft app, however the company warns that it’s not a guarantee that they’ll be matched with a women or non-binary person if one of those people aren’t nearby. Both the riders and drivers will need to opt-in to the feature for it work and riders must chose a gender for it to work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is it illegal to choose your primary care physician based on gender? Maybe I'm not reading this entirely correctly, but why would it be illegal to similarly choose your ride driver by gender?

Wouldn't discrimination be more if Lyft refused to hire male drivers or something to that effect according to the civil rights act?

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

why would it be illegal to similarly choose your ride driver by gender?

Because it's against the law, as it is written. It isn't a BFOQ for a taxi driver to be male, female, young, old, of any particular race or religion, so yeah, discrimination on those qualities clearly violated the law.

Wouldn't discrimination be more if Lyft refused to hire male drivers or something to that effect?

Preferentially encouraging discrimination against male drivers is still discrimination, even if male drivers are still allowed on the platform.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The customer is making the choice not the business. When you search for primary care physicians in most networks, you can search and filter by gender. Again, is this illegal by your insurance/network to allow this filter?

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago
  1. the business is preferentially participating in the customer choice

  2. customer choice is also covered by the 1964 civil rights act, it's just nearly always unenforceable unless someone goes on a racist/sexist tirade

  3. when insurance companies allow people to filter for male and female doctors, they're allowing people to prefer both options, so they're not preferentially participating in the choice like Lyft is here. And, there are medical specialties where one could argue that being either male or female was a BFOQ. Being a taxi driver doesn't involve one's genitals like being an obstetrics patient does. If you are using your genitals to operate your car, you're doing it wrong.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Fair enough.

It will be interesting to see how this holds up in the courts, whether they can argue it's in fact a BFOQ, or whether that actually applies here.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I'm waiting patiently for the first man to actually get this to court.

gets LOTS of popcorn ready.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
289 points (88.7% liked)

News

23649 readers
2398 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS