If he truly did what he was a accused of, I have no problem with the punishment.
What I don't get, though, is that our modern culture keeps telling us that there is no such thing as "man" or "woman", that such distinctions are strictly the choice of the one using them.
|Incongruous picture of the highest military post in the U.S. Army|
The answer is two-fold. First, the cultural watchdogs who take care of such things live and die by the double standard. Like that woman who gave birth a couple weeks ago while thinking she's a man and getting a lot of publicity because men aren't supposed to be able to give birth (hint: they still can't) and then getting more publicity when she said her baby was a "boy" (i.e. saddling him with a gender stereotype from birth) and receiving no backlash from the useful idiots in the press who think she's a he, these same who have no problem in telling us that men and women are the same until a moment when they can advance another agenda by saying they aren't.
Second, and I stand by this: men and women are different. And while there are plenty of women in this world who could beat me up if they so desired, the reality is that--on average--men are stronger than women and, therefore, have an advantage in face-to-face fights. For millennia, then, it's been a standard rule of human behavior that men do not hit women. I think this rule also has some grounding in the idea that men should honor the gender of their mother, wife and daughters by treating all women with respect.
So, for the record, I whole-heartedly agree that if this young man struck the woman as alleged he should pay a penalty. I'm just surprised the SJWs agree with me.
P.S. Just as a matter of curiosity, would this guy have received the same penalty if he had struck a woman who self-identifies as a man and it could be proven that the blow had nothing to do with gender? (Maybe if there were witnesses to testify that they were arguing politics or sports.)