“Ride-Hailing Service Focused On Women — And Safety — Launches In Boston” (WBUR):
Safr officially hit Boston streets in the last couple of weeks and aims to make ride-hailing safe for women.
Safr had planned to offer a service exclusive to women, but that raised legal questions. The company says it doesn’t want to discriminate against men so men can sign up to be drivers or passengers too.
Then how is it actually different from Uber?
[Syed] Gilani said the Boston startup just wants to offer a ride-hailing option that’s majority women — and women will be its core focus.
“We want 99 percent drivers on our side as women,” Gilani said.
I’m wondering if this service isn’t inherently full of cisgender-normative prejudice as well as gender-persistence prejudice. A person who identifies as a woman uses the app to request a ride. Unless we are locked into old-style cisgender-normative and nonfluid-gender thinking, why do we assume that the person still identifies as a woman when the car shows up, e.g., 10 minutes later? Same question on the drivers. Let’s say Mr. Gilani (WBUR identifies the CEO as a man, but of course he could have changed gender ID since the interview) succeeds in getting 99 percent “women” as drivers. Unless he is assuming that gender is immutable, how does he know that 50 percent of his drivers won’t show up tomorrow morning identifying as “men”?
In a world that is free of gender-based thoughtcrime, how does it make sense to offer (or write about) a service by and/or for women?
Maybe gender identification doesn’t change enough to make a significant difference.
>> “We want 99 percent drivers on our side as women,”
I think he might be so much into the storied Brazilian tranny culture. And who came blame an enterprising person for wanting to get laid? Not even an elderly GOP senator who always thinks about sex, abortions, kinks, etc., after a midday nap. (Did you notice how some congressMALES are always happy to talk about sexual transgressions?)