Where I live (Ontario), men pay significantly more for auto insurance than women. When this was contested in the courts, the justification the government gave for this gender-based discrimination was that its fine for men to pay more because "science says that men take more risks".

OK then.

But why is that the end of it? If it is agreed upon that women are less risk-tolerant than men, then why can't we apply that concept to the following:

1) There are more male mass shooters.

Obviously people with a mental illness are more likely to go on a shooting spree if they are more likely to take risks.

2) There are more male criminals.

Same.

3) There are more men saving people from burning buildings (etc).

If men deserve scorn for being more likely to shoot up a school, then they deserve praise for being more likely to risk their life to save others.

4) There are more male CEO's

Starting your own business is a huge risk, to say the least.

5) There are more male elected representatives.

You can't hold political power if you don't run for office. Running for office is a HUGE risk though - you can spend enormous amounts of time/money/reputation and still never get the job.

If you're going to tell me that the reason the government is mostly male is because females are discriminated against then I'm going to point to the auto-insurance laws and say "nope, men are just more willing to risk it".

And if you're going to tell me that men aren't more risk-tolerant than women, then I have to ask: Why are we paying more for car insurance?