Tell that to car insurance companies.
It's now illegal in some nations to discriminate pricing based on gender.
>It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession).
Agreed.
Look at it the other way around. By not taking it into account, 100% of men would be suffering because of the 80% of women.
In any case, this isn't any different with all other factors. Age and profession for example. There are really good 16 year old drivers, why should they have to pay higher insurance? By your logic making any predictions is wrong if they aren't 100% accurate. Gender is just a subcase.
Nothing about this damages society or perpetuates class divisions and I haven't the slightest idea where you got that from. We aren't talking about arbitrarily discriminating against a group of people, but charging them slightly more because they cost slightly more. Or less. And for the most part, other factors like past history and the like will vastly outweigh that information, unless you actually believe it makes a difference. In which case why shouldn't it be used?
>Because human lives are more important than maximizing profit.
This is the stupidest expression going around the internet. Obviously human lives are more important than maximizing profit (well not so obviously, as almost everyone risks their own lives and often the lives of others for money and convenience. Driving cars for example.) This adds nothing to the conversation except to make it seem like the other side is against human lives which obviously aren't. No one has ever said "maximizing profit is more important than human lives."
It's interesting you've assumed that it's the women who are paying the higher premiums. Contrary to the stereotype about women being bad drivers, it's men who pay the gender premium on car insurance.