This seems like a slight mischaracterisation:

the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless.

The statement is actually that the possiblity of men potentially doing something is so high or so severe that the average bear is preferable.

The rest of your post is opinion though, and if you genuinely believe that the average man is more likely to be dangerous than the average bear, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind