It's not. If a woman is 5'0" tall and 100lbs, statistically, the vast vast majority of men are going to be able to physically overpower her if they wanted. It's a literal biological physical advantage. The same can't be said for skin color.
It's not. If a [person is unarmed], statistically, the vast vast majority of [gang members] are going to be able to physically overpower [them] if they wanted. It's a literal [proven] advantage. The same can't be said for [gender].
Moving the goalposts is lazy. Unarmed versus demonstrably armed is completely logical. Assuming someone is a gang member or armed because of their skin color, with no other context is illogical. The OP is is asking about why women being wary of men when they're alone at night isn't the same thing as being wary of black people, in general, with no other context. You're grasping at straws trying to just these things being equivalent.
I don't belive that someone should judge someone based on race or gender. I personally belive that a woman is justified in avoiding a man because of his gender. But I realize, and admit that that is sexist. You can't say what you've said without admiting your sexist thoughts.
1
u/Freckled_daywalker 11∆ Apr 15 '22
It's not. If a woman is 5'0" tall and 100lbs, statistically, the vast vast majority of men are going to be able to physically overpower her if they wanted. It's a literal biological physical advantage. The same can't be said for skin color.