some component that is genetic

Is there? What would that be? This is a can of worms that is ridiculously controversial. It is virtually impossible to remove all the social constructs jammed down children's throats. At this stage, we have no idea how much is genetic. But you are correct - testosterone is likely related to aggression. But does testosterone cause aggression... or does aggression cause testosterone? The nature vs. nurture debate is ongoing and it is unclear which is more pervasive in our social behaviours.

In lower animals

I refuse to accept this argument as human beings are capable of rational thought. There is no equivalency here. Sexual cannibalism has been observed in mantises; is that a justification for me to decapitate the next man I sleep with?

societal effects predominate in humans. But while it hasn't disappeared (and likely won't ever completely), it is significantly decreasing, and in Western society isn't enforced by law

I'm not sure if we had a misunderstanding but I don't see your argument here. Our societal interactions are literally what makes us human. Can you give me some examples to clarify?

In my personal experience, men tend to respond very favorably to women who act definitively.

And my entire point is that this is your experience. Which is understandable - what else do we base our worldviews on? But take a step back and listen to others' experiences. When a large group is telling you that they experience harassment from men, they aren't making it up just to fuck with you.

I'm going to respond to your other comment here so we don't clutter up _refugee_'s thread.

a physical reaction is perfectly justified.

When de-escalation is a viable option, it should be used before a physical response. Legally and in terms of safety. If you can run from the situation or talk your way out by just smiling and nodding, that should be your first choice. Especially when the person you're up against is typically stronger than you.

Harassment is usually defined as something like "continuing after being told not to". If you smile and nod, then no harassment is actually taking place.

No. No. Holy fucking shit, no. Victim blaming at its finest here. It is not the victim's responsibility to tell someone to stop harassing them; they shouldn't be harassed in the first place! What about people who are sexually harassed by their bosses and can't say no because they need that job? There are so many extenuating circumstances where a person is afraid of saying no.

This right here is why the consent movement has shifted gears from "no means no" to "yes means yes" - because if someone isn't continuously, enthusiastically, and verbally saying yes, then stop right there. Smiling and nodding does not equate to "why, yes, I do enjoy being told how hot my tits are" when it's being used as a tactic to defuse a situation.

I think you are missing the fundamental point where this is about how women actively figure out the best way to keep safe. From men harming them. Margaret Atwood famously said, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." You don't roll out of bed and think, hmm, I'm going to harass someone today. But you also don't have to let your friends know when you're going out at night, just in case someone harms you. You don't have to watch your drink, or be mindful of how you dress, or travel in pairs at parties and clubs. That, my friend, is male entitlement.