Unecessary Straps and Pouches and Belts and Clasps

I do not believe that the variances in strength and agility present in human sexual dimorphism are so wildly and distinctly disparate that this is a rational concern.

Actual cases of full-blown aggravated assault are skewed in the favour of the aggressor every time, regardless of gender, and even if gender WAS a major contributing factor in strength this is irrelevant when weapons are involved

The original spirit behind “men should never hit women” came from a reality in which women were entirely financially dependant on men and s could do nearly nothing to escape domestic violence. These situations continue to exist today, yes, but “men should never hit a woman, even in a situation where he would otherwise hit a man” is a response to a completely different situation which assumes that women, in general, are incapable of harm and a negligible threat. Which is dangerous and false. 

All forms of abuse and violence have, in varying degrees, psychological impact. Your supposition presupposes that the only measurable harm of violence is in the degree of physical injury, which I can tell you as an abuse survivor is false.

The distress caused by the experience of being attacked by another human being with intent to harm is not wholly dependant on the aggressor’s physical ability- personal history, situational circumstances, the presence and quality of support, and the aggressor’s intent, motive, rationality, and relationship to the victim are, I would say, far more relevant.

Anyone can lose any fight in the correct environmental circumstances, regardless of fitness or physical mass. 

Assuming any given individual’s testosterone or estrogen levels are such powerful predetermining factors in strength or ability that they can predict the outcome of any physical contest is so laughably flawed an argument that, assuming it were true, undermines the existence of nearly every sport or competition on earth. Why have boxing when we could just test each competitor and award theoretical victory to the contestant with the most “masculine” result? Why have the olympics if any given competition is just going to be won by the most “masculine” participant? This is clown shoes

Anyone, anywhere, of any physical ability, can lose a fight.

TL/DR: Nobody should hit anybody. But if there is a situation in which you would hit a man, any situation at all, any extreme- and you wouldn’t hit a woman in the exact same circumstance- sexism is a present factor

Whether that is the sexism present in “if I defend myself, as a man, I’ll be framed as the aggressor” or, “women are naturally weaker than men- it would be unfair as a man to hit a woman for any reason”, it’s still sexism. THAT is what I intend to address. Our society has a bizarre ick regarding anything to do with women and violence. Which is understandable, given our history, but its continued prevalence is symptomatic of a greater issue that affects women in sports, women in industry, male victims of abuse perpetrated by women, FEMALE victims of abuse perpetrated by men, trans people of all genders in all walks of life, and the average person’s conceptual understanding of gender as a whole.

So perhaps I should restructure my original argument:

The success of feminism in our society will be indicated when the average man, otherwise disinclined towards violence, is willing and able to hit a women for the same reasons he would otherwise hit a man, without repercussions specific to perception of gender