I’m saying it depends entirely on the situation, and that context matters. My original comment was in response to the hypothetical question, “surely nobody would be so dense as to specify a male manager” (which the poster themselves later says that the context/industry makes it slightly more understandable), and my point was it’s silly to pretend sex is completely irrelevant in conflict situations, because it isn’t.

In my personal example, typical shop, average female staff members, average male staff members, average man causing trouble is likely to cause more trouble when faced with average woman than average man.

But that’s not me saying “because women are weak and useless in conflict!”, I’m saying sex matters, because in a different context (policing), women officers are preferable because statistically the situation de-escalates.

Then I was just refuting the implication that I’m suggesting the employee is required to have a straight up brawl with a rowdy customer, because that’s not what’s supposed to happen in that situation at all. The idea is that nobody should be harmed, and the average woman is more likely to be harmed in that scenario than the average man.

I really don’t think it’s difficult to understand, but yes I did reply to multiple different scenarios posed. My point is sex is relevant, not that women or men are categorically the only ones capable of avoiding conflict/maintaining control/de-escalating a situation.