I don't see why this needed meddling with - it was never a purely sexist policy. If their risk profiling shows that, as a group, women have lower value claims in a period than men do I think it is perfectly acceptable to base premiums accordingly. In the same way that I think if they can show that a bouncer is likely to have more accidents than an accountant then it is acceptable to take people's profession into account, or where they live if statistically that influences how likely their car is to be vandalised or stolen (which it will). It doesn't always make sense but they have to base it on something rather than charging everyone the same figure, and as long as they have stats to back it up then fair enough. It does seem a bit weird at times though - having a long history of driving high performance cars, with 10+ years NCB and no claims/convictions I found it a bit odd that they wanted to reduce the premium if I added my wife to the policy, who has had two 'fault' accidents in the last 12 months?!? But, hey, I'll happily add her to it if they will reduce the cost. Even more weirdly it reduced further when I UPPED the annual mileage limit from 3k to 5k. How can having the option to use the car more REDUCE the premium? Some other strange risk profiling they have that says low usage drivers are more of a risk I presume, but I drive other cars so 3k limit on a car does not mean I am just driving 3k a year. So I went for 5k and you don't need to drive it the maximum number given anyway. I just go on the comparison sites and play with all the options for an evening until the lowest numbers pop out! So having higher premiums for women in future will probably actually INCREASE my insurance costs!
I think there are other things they could have legislated on before this - like why women get to retire earlier than men but are also the ones who should get to live longer in life enjoying themselves afterwards!