Insurance companies base rates on statistics and personal driving records. For example, if men are shown to have more accidents, tickets, etc. than women, then their rates will be higher. The insurance company has to take this into consideration or else they will end up losing money. Is this fair to the males who are excellent drivers? No, but that's the way it is. Insurance companies also base rates on individual driving records so this is where it balances out.
I think that insurance companies have based this upon stastics that show males to be a higher risk than females. I would be interested in seeing how these stastics have been determined and how they have changed over the years.
I believe Insurance companies are already deciding the rates of auto insurance based on assessment of individuals past driving record that determines risk if insurance company in the claims made. Then why this additional penalty for male drivers?
Besides, I believe people in most of the countries are still living as family groups, and expenses incurred on any one member of the family, reduces the money balance money available for the entire family, which on average includes equal number of males and females. Then who benefits from increasing the insurance amount for males? Or is the suggestion in post #1 made in the interest of insurance companies?
If male drivers are a greater risk and produce more harm than good in relation to damage, then they should pay higher premiums in insurance. If they don't, and it is merely discrimination, then that should be prosecuted as a crime. I would have to see evidence of the history of drivers to judge more properly. The benefit could be that the higher premiums enable other drivers to pay less.