I think the problem with your argument is the measure of paranoia. It's 100% reasonable to be suspicious and cautious around men, strange or familiar, if you're a woman. The issue I think most men have to this isn't reasonable suspicion or reasonable caution, but rather the over the top reaction women online seem to have.

An example of this might be a youtube video about women checking into a hotel alone vs a man checking into a hotel alone. The man checks in and goes right to bed, the lock on the door automatically engages when the door closes. The example with the woman has her block the one way peephole, double check the deadbolt, brace a chair against the door handle, string a tight rope from the door handle to a firm anchor in the bathroom, unplug the phone, close the blinds, check that the mirror isn't see through, and sweep the room for listening devices. You see this and think it must be satire, and it might be, but then you go into the comments and there's a ton of women saying how true this is and how you gotta be careful of men when traveling alone. Every so often you'll see a comment from a man about how this is insane and all the women respond how he's privileged and doesn't understand why women have to do all this.

No man is going to begrudge a reasonable reaction to strangers and safety, but relating to a comic about seeing a spam notification about singles in your area and locking your door is ridiculous. It's this over the top reaction that men become offended by, not reasonable caution.

if girls are afraid of guys, that's my problem

And then when a woman is raped and murdered in her hotel room, men like you will be saying that she must have wanted it because she didn't even take basic precautions to make sure no-one could get in.

So when women start taking these precautions, because generations of women before them have learnt from experience that when a man rapes you, it's your fault for not taking precautions... men like you now complain that women are overly paranoid and making things worse for themselves, because their precautions are hurting your feelings.

I don't feel safe around muslims because some of them are jihadists.

"This harmful generalization is bad for society"

"Clearly you only feel that way because it actually describes you personally"

Not only is that an unfair assumption, it's also irrelevant to their claim.

If someone is judged as threatening based on their gender, they have been wronged. And what do you mean "stop making it about yourself"? Did they ask to be judged in the first place?

First off, uh no I would not blame the victim for being raped and murdered and the fact that that is what you lead with is pretty telling. Next I think it's really telling that you are saying the over reaction is "basic precaution."

If a woman does a normal amount of precaution, such as locking the door and not opening it for strangers, that's normal and perfectly reasonable. If the woman literally barricades herself in that's insane. In either case, if she is attacked or raped it's not her fault and but that doesn't mean overreaction isn't overreaction.

The issue I think most men have to this isn't reasonable suspicion or reasonable caution,

What level of suspicion is reasonable?

Granted, I will not pretend that women are somehow above being very superstitious and silly. I've seen armored SUVs marketed to suburban house moms that are beyond parody. But still, for a demographic of people who largely do not have to deal with predatory men, being men themselves, how do men know what a reasonable degree of caution looks like?

but relating to a comic about seeing a spam notification about singles in your area and locking your door is ridiculous.

Well, this comic is.. comedy. It has to be a little silly for the joke to land.

Locking the door with a common deadbolt has less to do with actually protecting anyone and more to do with being visual shorthand for a comedic sentiment.

Your analogy doesn't include some important details for the subject. In the game, crewmates and imposters are on different teams and only one of them can win. It's not "wrong" for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that's how they play. All players support imposters killing crewmates because it's what they signed up for. But in real life, we are on the same team. We are all crewmates doing our tasks, although I guess we have the option to kill each other. Acting as if someone doing their tasks near you wants to kill you is then a more meaningful personal judgement rather than just the impersonal scrutiny expected in a social deduction game.

More importantly, it's relevant that this is one group of people making a judgement about another group of people based on group membership. So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red, not any suspicious activity they have noticed. If crewmates had equal innate suspicion towards each other regardless of color (as should happen in the game) then there is no issue.

This is EXTREME hyperbole like I've rarely seen before.

Is all empathy secret projection for one's own insecurity? Or only when the empathy is for someone who isn't a member of a traditionally/systemically victimized group?

Please forgive me, but I'm going to answer your post in the opposite order it was given.

I completely agree about the comedy and the satire of the original comic, I'm not opposed to it being over the top to deliver it's comedic message. I'll also say that the message is comedic in a dark way. The issue inherent to it is when you have people giving seemingly literal agreement to satirical statements, which is what a lot of these comments have devolved into. Your own post was 659 words, 44 lines, and 14 paragraphs obviously this discussion isn't just about visual shorthand of a comic, it has some amount of real world investment.

As to your first question, I can't give a concrete answer. As with many psychological things I can't tell you what is a reasonable amount of suspicion, but I can say what is an overreaction. Similarly, I can't tell you what a reasonable amount of collecting is, but I can spot hoarding. I can't tell you what a reasonable attention to detail is, but I can spot an obsessive compulsive behavior. I'm not a doctor, and won't pretend to be one, so I can't tell you in definite terms what a reasonable suspicion is, but I can certainly identify an overreaction.

If someone sees an overly dramatic comic about women being fearful of men and their reaction is to defend the over dramatic behavior then that's an overreaction. When men call out this behavior as overly dramatic and someone defends it, and in fact doubles down on it, then it's clearly not just satire or a dark joke.

If we're using the example of the hotel room I would venture to say that a reasonable level of suspicion would be to lock the door, turn the deadbolt, put the swing arm on, and don't open the door for strangers. If you start getting into hiding, configuring contraptions, barring the door with chairs, and checking the mirrors to see if they are see through, that's an overreaction in my book.

Their claim is inherently irrelevant and reactionary. They were reactionary because they felt called out.

I'm apart of the don't be a shithead crowd. Apparently a lot of men in this thread aren't. And you all wonder why so many women are so terrified of men. You can't even empathize with the fear and abuse they face at a systemic level.

How come str8s don't consult with their local LGBTQ+ friendos? I like playing matchmaker.

Gotta have local friendos first...

I do. I empathize with it completely. I'm not even saying that condition is WRONG. But I AM saying that turning someone's lamentation of the situation into an attack on them is crass. It's possible to acknowledge the bad situation one group is in, and acknowledge their actions are reasonable, while ALSO being sympathetic about the collateral damage of the situation.

It's not "wrong" for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that's how they play.

This analogy is specifically from the perspective of crewmates. It is wrong for crewmates to die, actually, because this brings your team closer to defeat.

I think you might also think that I view the crewmates as women? No. The divide drawn here is between cooperative and uncooperative. Citizen and villain. The presence of imposters makes all crewmates less safe to be around. Unless you have ways of managing risk.

So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red,

If the game were programmed such that red crewmates were exclusively the ones chosen to be imposters, regardless of how this might damage the video game's fun, don't you think that being near a red crew member would set off some alarm bells? Wouldn't you think of green crew members as more safe?

I've played plenty of RPGs where certain kinds of treasure chest, and certain kinds of treasure chest alone, require a degree of caution because I cannot know if they are mimics.

you’ll end up meeting women

Do I want to?

I'm posing a broader question about society to clarify a general concern with no particular motivation, and you make it about meeting women.
That suggests something about assumed motivations in these discussions.

That's the same logic that has rounding up brown people in the US now. Some of them might be working for the cartels, so better treat every gun as if it were loaded.