Obviously problems happen. Personally I don't care to be approached, generally, and I think it's better than being afraid of everybody. I've been approached by gay men and didn't suffer any trauma. I don't mean there cannot be psychos out there, but if you assume anyone who checks you out or looks you up in the net to be a stalker, I think that's completely over the top and that kind of paranoid attitude will cause more harm than good.
Have you done what you suggested would be a quick way to solve the stated problem? If not, then we're still dealing with your rectally-sourced speculation.
Additionally, what you're offering is like me -- suppose I live in a nice house in the hills -- going down to the ghetto and asking why people bother locking their doors at night and putting bars on their windows. I don't do any of those things and I don't have a problem with home-invasion roberries -- why are all these people so paranoid and afraid!?
Put another way: you would have no clue if, say, you were riding a bus full of predators, because you are not prey -- a woman more likely would.
I could type an entire essay here explaining how and why women have different motivations and risk profiles than you, but I doubt you would respond with anything more thoughtful than "obviously, problems happen." Instead of speculating as to why you might be so obtuse here -- I would guess it's because you are resentful of the seemingly inconsistent and inexplicable behavior of women -- let me just offer this: stop fixating on how things should be and start understanding things as they are now.
This is really no different than entrepreneurs bitching about how risk-adverse investors are, and how they won't respond to 99% of cold calls, even if only to politely decline. Or how investors vastly prefer known founders, even when they have been previously burnt by them, rather than taking risks on unknown quantities. But at the end of the day, investors have the money and women have the vaginas, so they make the rules and they don't have to be fair, scrutable, rational or consistent -- they only have to be advantageous.
I'm talking about a very particular case and you are pestering me with sweeping generalisations.
Each one should make his or her own risk assessment. I was talking about dismissing people from your environment who look up your public information as stalkers.
The problem is that the "harm" that can happen can be terrible terrible harm. Some gay (or other LGBT people) can be literally killed if the wrong person approaches them. There is an element of danger that straight cis men rarely are able to notice.
Stop trying to tell marginalized groups that they are silly to be worried. We know our own lives and our own experiences. We've seen the odd stare or remark someone has made. We all worry that sometimes this person will go very far. Work on reducing the amount of hatred that spewed out by some groups which encouraged the people that attack us.
