Indeed. it is not about intent, but rather what class of action has occurred.

Words might escalate to violence, but they are treated differently since as a category they cannot inflict damage the way a gun can — even though they could escalate to a gun. So worst damage possible within same class of actions is a key measure the severity. This is why a man attacking w/o a weapon is treated differently than a man attacking with a weapon. Staying within class greater damage can occur.

By the same token a 25 year old woman punching an 89 year old man would be in a different category than a 25 year old woman punching a 25 y/o woman. The former as a category has worse case instances within category.

I don’t think the law actually differentiates between these cases as this would be too hard of a law to write. But in court I think those cases would rightly be treated differently. Since the within-category damages are very different. and in both cases the assailant has already demonstrated a willingness to operate within category.

What is different is the other elements within the same category. for the 89 year old man case, there is easy death, while the latter case, not so much.

So it is not so much the sex of the person that matters here, what matters is what other elements are within the category that the assailant has already demonstrated a propensity toward.

all pretty theoretical … and I think current law already handles pretty well.