I never acknowledged that he couldn't know. I pointed out that he has no evidence as to how he knows. Evidence isn't the only form of knowledge. He achnowledged this when he said that he knew through logic rather than evidence.
Which is why it was dumb of him to ask for evidence in the first place. I'm waiting for him to realize that.
I have absolutely no problem with conceding that an unknown woman may be treated with the same suspicion.
However, considering that most crime and violence is committed by men, it would make sense that women would be more "prejudiced" against men in this regard, than the opposite.
This treatment is something that all men are accustomed to, as a result of the greater level of physicality that they are capable of possessing. When they walk into a new environment, their "threat level" will be estimated by those that they are unknown to.
But when it happens across race lines, the motive is automatically assumed to be race-based, rather than simply a result of the tensions that exist between a physically stronger male and the relatively weaker woman.
By introducing the racial element, and hammering home the point that one must not be suspicious of a person of another race, as it is an example of racism, we inadvertently foster situations where women become defenseless and vulnerable against the people that they are not allowed to be "racist" (or rather, suspicious) towards. In a top-down controlled society like my own, it is especially troubling, and results in unfortunate and needless situations as a result of naiveté and blind faith into society's new imposed standards, as well as the fear of punishment for acting differently.