Proving that discriminating against a straight white male is the only type of discrimination approved of by the left, Uber has just announced their “women only” service, initially to be rolled out in Los Angeles, Detroit, and San Francisco. This service is reportedly being offered in response to a large number of reported sexual assaults that have occurred on ride shares like Uber and Lyft. (Am I the only one noticing that the sexual assaults are all happening in ultra-liberal cities?)
Under this service, female riders have the option of demanding only female drivers. This is discriminatory against male riders AND drivers.
I am sure that Uber is just about to start their new service of “no illegal immigrants,” to be followed by their “no niggers” service. As long as Uber is about to be discriminatory, they might as well go all the way.
No word on what happens when sexual predators simply declare that they are trannies and identify as women before picking up victims women riders and the arguments that ensue. That will shortly be followed by discrimination lawsuits when male drivers file EEOC employment discrimination lawsuits. The fecal material is about to hit Uber’s oscillating air motivation device.
15 Comments
SoCoRuss · August 18, 2025 at 11:26 am
Bingo for the million dolla lawsuit idea. ID as a trans woman and when they wont hire you, you sue.
In those states what jury wont side with you and they know it so they will settle for big bucks.
ALWAYS play the game like the other side does and give it back good and hard.
Watch them cry and scream.
Marc · August 18, 2025 at 6:24 pm
I believe that to be hitting the rotary oscillator.
Honk Honk · August 18, 2025 at 7:53 pm
I thought mean girl bosses were like the little girl in front of the bull statue?
Unclezip · August 18, 2025 at 8:24 pm
Your noticing has been noticed.
oldvet50 · August 19, 2025 at 5:53 am
You’ll probably have as much success with a lawsuit as did that guy that sued Hooters for a waiter job in the 90s. The courts ruled it was OK to discriminate since it was a ‘business model’ – go figure! I’ve never taken a Lyft or Uber (and never will) and the last taxi ride I took was in 2022. The lengths they are going to to ‘protect’ their clients prove it is dangerous to forego vetting. A taxi company has employees; these alternate businesses have independent contractors (less control to shield them from liability).
Steve S6 · August 19, 2025 at 7:09 am
So, the gun control in those places doesn’t protect the women from assault?
I’m shocked. Shocked I say.
J J · August 19, 2025 at 7:19 am
Conversely, what happens when a driver with a vagina refuses to transport a person with a penis who identifies as a person with a vagina?
This new thing won’t end well for Uber. Maybe they should hire the woman who came up with the gay Bud Light ads to create a new ad campaign.
Tom235 · August 19, 2025 at 7:33 am
It’s getting time to bring back more discrimination – aka, “freedom of assembly”. I want to be free to “assemble” with those I wish to assemble and not be forced to assemble with those I don’t.
Pete · August 19, 2025 at 9:22 am
Brown females can be involved in sex trafficking cartels too. Just getting a “woman driver” is no guarantee. “Why are we turning down this dark alley, this isn’t the way to the airport!”
SoCoRuss · August 19, 2025 at 10:35 am
So women and tiny little green cars are getting charged less? Is there a surcharge for white guys and then higher rate for straight white guys and than a NO Fucking right wingers allowed ban?
Rick · August 20, 2025 at 1:35 pm
Banks and insurance companies have a long history of doing exactly that. A recent, but nowhere near the first, example is banks declining purchases of firearms.
Rick · August 19, 2025 at 12:32 pm
What is the incidence of, say A&B perpetuated by male vs female?
What is the incidence of the same perpetuated by male on female vs female on female?
Does a difference in mental and physical characteristics exist in females and males?
Some women prefer to ride with women. Perhaps it is better stated that some women prefer to avoid the potential risks of closed isolated association with men, as in a taxi ride. Uber is recognizing that.
How is to argue against this Uber policy different than the argument that women should share the locker room with males?
Divemedic · August 19, 2025 at 1:25 pm
Are you saying that women are getting naked in the back of an Uber? No? Then the locker room argument is a strawman argument.
Are you saying that businesses can use crime statistics to refuse service because men are more violent? Then please, let’s have a discussion on race and crime.
If you are making the argument that people should associate with whomever they choose, and not associate with whomever they choose, we are in agreement.
However, I can’t put up a sign in my business that says “No blacks” so Uber can’t put up a sign that says “No men.”
Rick · August 20, 2025 at 1:29 pm
Insurance companies use crime statistics to set premiums.
One need not undress to use a locker room. The concern centers upon use of a private space by both sides. It is the same concern about both sides simultaneously using a bathroom.
Uber is not refusing riders.
Anonymous · August 20, 2025 at 1:32 pm
.Corrections:
… by both sexes.
Under the subject policy, Uber is not refusing riders.
Auto correct frustrates me.
Comments are closed.