I'm not sure what you mean. Everything in the comment I responded to apply to the same extent to women/men and white/black. Both the question in the first paragraph and the statement about crime statistics not being enough. It seems to me that the burden of providing a justification is with whoever wants to treat them differently. Why isn't the question just as applicable to gender? Why are crime statistics enough to come to a conclusion about gender but not race?
We know that there is a large sentencing disparity among both women/men and white/black people who are convicted, even when controlling for everything imaginable. We know that there are significant differences in the social and cultural expectations that are usually placed on both women/men and white/black people, and we know that there are on average psychological differences between both women/men and white/black people. The base assumption and the analysis required to come to a conclusion should be the same. The conclusion may or may not be the same.
> Why isn't the question just as applicable to gender?
The assumption is that gender and crime aren't related. The burden of proof is on showing that two things are related IMO. Black history and criminalization are related so you need to give context for that relationship.
Why would that be the assumption? If Black history is the reason for the disparity between white and black people (in the US, presumably), why can't the history of treating women as delicate quasi-children without agency be the reason for the disparity between women and men? Or perhaps the history of mass sacrificing men as expendable soldiers? Or any other past or present practice that no doubt has an effect on current cultural norms?
Show me how the precession of Mercury affects violent crime rates and I'll bite. Until then, I'd say the assumption is that two arbitrary things aren't related
> men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women
> black people have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than white people
It seems way easier to justify that first statement. Are there physiological differences between a black man and a white man that are as significant as the differences between testosterone and estrogen?
That may be true, but we should still avoid false equivalencies. There is scientific evidence for a casual relationship between testosterone and violence. Even if that is debated and there is no full consensus, there is still more evidence for it than there is for the idea that a person's race has a casual relationship on their propensity for violence all else being equal.
Your second statement doesn’t logically follow the first. It suggests that there is a similar claim of a cause for the statement that black people are more violent which is as strong (however weak and disputed) as the claim of this cause of testosterone.
