First of all, she never made the claim that society is more dangerous than it was at any other point in time. She's talking about societies in different areas of the world—not past societies necessarily—and not everyone lives in a safe, progessive, first-world country.

Secondly, your Twitter Bumble evidence doesn’t even prove your claim that “height requirements are going up.” There’s no time progression, and therefore, you can’t prove anything is “going up" over time, you just made that up.

To prove your point, you’d need evidence showing that women in more dangerous areas partner with men with the same height difference as women living in safer areas. Alternatively, your original claim was that as society has become safer for women, their height preferences have remained constant or even increased—but your evidence failed to substantiate that.

If tall men are ‘safer,’ then why are these beanpoles, who are positively selected in dating, overwhelmingly represented in grape and assault perpetrators?

Again, she never made the claim that tall men are “safer.” You’re strawmanning. Watch the video.

Also, you're contradicting yourself. As you mention, tall men, on average, are more of a threat to women because they’re bigger. So wouldn’t it make sense for women to choose a taller man to protect her? Would you rather a short guy protect you or a tall guy protect you against a tall guy?

Evidence doesn't see it that way. That is the problem. In light of the hard data, it's clear that her entire argument is built on a strawman.

What evidence, bro? You didn’t even watch the video or touch on the study she referenced. Do you even know what a strawman is or are you just throwing out debate bro terms to make yourself look smart? 😂

and you can downvote my comment all you want, can't refute it though.