Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ccieng5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!jbf
From: jbf@ccieng5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women based on actuarial tables
Message-ID: <453@ccieng5.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-May-84 08:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccieng5.453
Posted: Sat May 26 08:59:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:21:21 EDT
References: <685@u1100a.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 15

I don't think I agree that dividing the population into separate
male and female populations for actuarial purposes is unjust.  Yes,
factors such as smoking/non-smoking, drinking/non-drinking/heavy-drinking,
etc. could be considered, but these are far more liable to change than
the male-female distinction, and far harder for the insurance company
to verify.  Thus, the male/female distinction may be one of the few
that is practical to make (racial distinctions would also seem reasonable,
as far as liability to change goes, but the distinctions can be very
fuzzy when the majority of the population is probably mixed!).

Jens
-- 
"Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd"
Reachable as
	....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf