> Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g
...because the former holds true across correlations (and is difficult to confound anyway, since the group 'men' and the group 'women' are distributed in like proportion through correlated groups - rich and poor, white and black, around the world, etc), while the latter is very difficult to convincingly show because controlling for economic status alone eliminates more than half of the gap.
Men are genuinely, testably, provably, empirically more violent than women. It's hard to apply any numerate approach to the data which does not support this conclusion. The correlation between melanation and violence is murky and very plausibly non-existent except as artifacts of confounding factors.
Moreover, the definition of "violent behavior" for the purposes of essentially all major research on this topic excludes major wars. If you include projection of military force around the world, it seems likely that the violence perpetrated by white folks is likely to be proportionally greater.
> Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.
I broadly agree with this statement, but I think we can still, eg, teach boys not to rape without running afoul of this standard.
Your standard for saying A is more X than B is a bit strange. For me, all it means is roughly that when picking two individuals from A and B the one from A is more likely to have greater X (assuming here the distributions are not weird).
This is in itself useful information, at least in principle. To take the political correct example, let's say that I am a bissexual man. A priori, the probability that I will be attacked will be greater when dating a man. Is this useful? I don't know. That will depend how strong the difference is in the first place and how fast I can update my estimation based on new information.
How can you be sure than men are intrinsically more violent than women anyway? Couldn't it just be because of the way men are raised (i.e. the patriarchy)?
It also makes a lot more sense biologically. Testosterone and estrogen have strong mental effects, and alter brain development. The brain is sexually dimorphic in complex ways, borne out by many studies. The brain is not racially dimorphic at all.
...because the former holds true across correlations (and is difficult to confound anyway, since the group 'men' and the group 'women' are distributed in like proportion through correlated groups - rich and poor, white and black, around the world, etc), while the latter is very difficult to convincingly show because controlling for economic status alone eliminates more than half of the gap.
Men are genuinely, testably, provably, empirically more violent than women. It's hard to apply any numerate approach to the data which does not support this conclusion. The correlation between melanation and violence is murky and very plausibly non-existent except as artifacts of confounding factors.
Moreover, the definition of "violent behavior" for the purposes of essentially all major research on this topic excludes major wars. If you include projection of military force around the world, it seems likely that the violence perpetrated by white folks is likely to be proportionally greater.
> Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.
I broadly agree with this statement, but I think we can still, eg, teach boys not to rape without running afoul of this standard.