I can't tell what the point of the comment was because you didn't cite it.

But are you certain you didn't miss the point?

I've read quite a few comments of this sort. Some are really dumb. But some frame the question this way to highlight that it is entirely the hypothetical nature of the question, about a topic made in ignorance which governs the responses.

Very few people understand the relative risks of meeting random men and random bears in the woods. Since they fail to have adequate basis to make the judgment, and are also freed from the necessity of living with the consequences, people are happy to answer the question to make a statement: you say "men are worse than bears" not because men are worse than bears, but you want to say "man bad", and you don't actually have to worry about bears, because it's all just words.

One way to point out this phenomenon is to say: hey, let's pretend we were not just going to ask, but let's extend the scenario so that it's (more) credible that people would have to go through with it. This removes the (hypothetical) safety around getting the answer wrong, which can reveal whether someone is posturing to make a statement, or authentically revealing their preferences.

All the rationalization you did above, if it was that type of answer, simply misses the point. You explain why you want to make a statement: men do bad things. Yup. Some do. Got it. Some men seem so willfully blind to that fact that the answer is to tell them for the 200th time that, yes, some men do bad things, and honestly, if they still haven't gotten it yet, they're at very high risk of being one of them. But some men understand that perfectly well, but (possibly not fully consciously) still recognize that the point of the question is to place men against a symbol of danger, and believe that the symbolism is hurtful and misguided given the scale of the (symbolic) danger.

Talking about the well-understood part (danger of men to women) isn't very helpful in addressing comments whose point is that the symbolism is miscalibrated by virtue of the question admitting danger-discounting posturing despite being presented as a two alternative forced-choice question.

So, anyway, maybe cite your sources? I can't tell if this was one of the dumb comments that was hardly worth responding to, or one of the more-thoughtful ones to which your answer is a non-answer.