You're probably right.

But just for fun, what if their actuaries found:

1. Very few men are willing to select non-binary even if it means a discount.
2. The women who would select non-binary are willing to pay a premium to be "affirmed."

Then they wouldn't pass up the free money by putting a third classification in between male and female. It's exact premium determined by the balance between #1 and #2.

Edit: I found a reference to OP's image. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/svTif

To my surprise, they found "non-binary" to be cheaper than female.

Daily Mail has confirmed the trend - finding the costs of a comprehensive policy for a 2016 Hyundai i30 was about $730 cheaper for a 25-year-old non-binary customer than a male - bringing the cost from $2,300 per year to $1570. The same policy for a female customer was about $1,917.

Women get in a dozen fender benders for every wreck that men get in, but men total the car when we do wreck. So the rates being different is completely data driven.

This is a myth people love to parrot when it comes to insurance rates. The real reason men pay more is far simpler: men drive more miles per year than women. That's what outweighs women having a higher accident rate.

What if women are statistically more likely to be brainwashed into thinking they’re mentally ill? Wouldn’t the tranny stats default to the female price?

Men drive more and often in more dangerous areas/time of day. 80% percent of it is probably just that.

With the rising cost of vehicle parts and repairs, even slow fender benders often result in total losses now. So female rates are probably about to skyrocket.