If we're not thinking clearly, we're not ready to solve any problems.

You're saying women are interpreting probabilities and that I'm mansplaining them, when in fact, you only said one thing that wasn't obviously subject to a base rate fallacy and that one probably isn't true. There aren't a "myriad of different ways" to talk about whether meeting a man or a bear puts a woman at greater risk--not the ones you gave originally, and you didn't actually do the thing you said we might. You can talk about the parameters, but once you have set the problem it is simply math. The only room for "interpretation" in that part is making mistakes.

There is room for differing judgments, but you haven't actually covered those.

Men are dangerous. They're dangerous to women, and also dangerous to men. Heck, men are dangerous to bears, too; most hunters are men.

The best ways to keep women safe from men, generally, are to (0) avoid war; (1) have women and men on the same side rather than as adversaries; (2) raise men well, which involves a good social safety net, being well-integrated into a community (especially in deed not just speech), and a supportive childhood emotional environment; (3) have a respectful individually-validating culture rather than an exploitative objectifying culture (especially regarding women); (4) make it easier to document abusive behavior, which at this point is mostly a tech issue; (5) reliably hold to account and discipline those men who commit violence against women; and (6) if the above isn't working well enough, emphasize to men their duty to protect women and to women the security in being protected by men, assuming one can vet the protectors enough so that it's actually a positive.

Giving women bad excuses to liken men to bears isn't part of it. If we're uplifting bears, great! Bears are cool. If it's used to bring men down, no, that's probably making things worse.