The wealthy Quaker drivers thing threw me. I know it's an exaggeration but is there a large enough wealthy Quaker driver population drivers ubers for this to be a concern?

I highly doubt that there is. I'm just saying that if you can discriminate on drivers based on protected characteristic Y and data suggesting that characteristic Y is more/less dangerous, then you should be able to discriminate on protected characteristic X based on similar data, or both characteristics X and Y, or characteristics X, Y, Z, U and W.

If characteristic X was race, religion or sexuality, I think people would be extremely opposed to this, and not even entertain the idea that this would be acceptable.

You don't have to dance around it. That's exactly what's happening. The people here who are saying it's okay to discriminate against men because "they" commit sexual assaults at a higher rate, those same people would (rightly) lose their minds if anyone suggest that we should discriminate against African Americans if they were to commit some violent crime at a higher rate.

We need to call a spade a spade here. This is blindly terrible logic. It's crass sex discrimination, and it's affect people's ability to find employment, and it's almost certainly against the law.

Deciding we can just start discriminating against an entire class of people in employment or housing, just because their is a subset of that class committing crimes is a civil rights violation.

People need to stop treating this like it's somehow okay because it's men.