In your opening, you assert that men are more likely to receive unwanted advances than women and that progressives are vague. This is so you can stress the importance of defining terms. Later you stress the importance of statistics over anecdotes, yet you support neither of these claims with statistics. Why?
As for defining sexual harassment, especially in a workforce, it is clearly defined — and you should educate yourself in it. I assume anyone weighing in on US sexual harassment should know what it means. It is clear you do not.
Look for: “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment.” These are legal terms and are really clear. Once you understand those terms, you’ll know what all the big deal is about sexual harassment in the workplace going on nowadays, then you can learn about the definition for sexual abuse. Unwanted advances, in the right context, constitute sexual harassment.
It is clear that you don’t recognize or understand non-binary genders, gender dysphoria, or any other things than a man wears pants and a woman wears a skirt. Given the amount of data and testimony out there, this is your failing as someone attempting to map definitions with real life. Too bad I don’t have time or patience to engage you further on this.
Women and permission to be leaders? This is easy. You are flat out wrong. History prevented women from owning property, from being leaders in the church, and from leading companies in the same way men do. Even now, prejudices keep women out of leadership roles and stigmas keep them out of STEM. Kind of like how my brother was scolded with a ruler for using his left hand to write, except worse. Deny this, and I’m just going to say there’s no sense us discussing things because you reject actual experience and statistics over your own biases. Yes, some women make a decision to lead a different life than owning a company or becoming CEO, but that doesn’t reject the lived experience of those who want to succeed but cannot. And this is just in the US. Don’t wear blinders. Ask yourself about leadership roles in other countries.
As for men and biology, I believe people of all gender identifications have biology to back that up. You might be right that women can use certain situations to make a fool of a man, to give him opportunity to mess his career up. However, once he crosses the legal lines, he has done it himself. The testimonies I’ve read have nothing to do with women being temptresses [how a conservative might see them] and luring a man to his demise. Lots of testimonies involve a woman wanting to do her job and a man, e.g. quid pro quo, making it impossible for her to do that job [or, in other cases, making it more likely she can do the job than some other person] unless or until she performs some sexual favor.
Why are men being destroyed?
What I look for in a series of stories are: are they internally consistent, do they match up with other stories reported by independent narrators, how does the man respond to it. One thing which a lot of networks and other forums is doing to prevent reputational damage to their brand is not conveying the type or nature of evidence levied against a bad actor. Maybe they have witnesses, maybe they have what the woman told a friend at the time and didn’t report at the time, maybe they have video evidence or recordings or written evidence or texts or DNA. The simple fact is NBC wouldn’t fire Lauer and Fox wouldn’t fire O’Reilly over nothing. Some of these decisions are months in the making and have been vetted via a full legal team. A lot of the cases involve women who have nothing to gain from their claims: no book deals, no lucrative movie deals, nothing but shame if it goes the wrong way.
And it goes the wrong way when you shame them.
Shame on you.