A woman of significantly above average strength/size is going to be stronger than an average man. Sexual dimorphism among humans isn't that large. Add in the advantage she would have if armed with even the simplest of weapons and a male victim was not, and the odds are not significantly different than if the attacker were male. So, that point is blatantly not true. Perhaps only due to exaggeration, but still not true.

Violent crime simply isn't about physical strength. If it were, violent crime would be near equivalent between men and women of similar physical strength. Add in the equalizing effect of firearms, and differences would decrease even further. There simply isn't data to support such a conclusion. Control for physical size/strength, and there is still a significant gender difference in crime rate between women and men.

It isn't about size or strength so much as it is about evolution and reproductive strategies that extend farther back than humans, primates, or even mammals. Females, typically, have less to gain by being aggressive than males do. Thus, reproductive pressure drives males and females to behave differently.

This whole discussion is almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion about equality and sexism. How much does physical strength, or propensity to aggressive behavior have to do with how well people can operate a machine, or write code?

The point is that biological differences have resulted in cultural roles that are less relevant in a modern world. It may be possible to adjust cultural pressures to make our societies more interested a person's skill set than in their gender. There is a lot of cultural and biological inertia to counter, but it may be possible.