[ygjb]

Sibling comment already addressed this, but for the simple reason that when you are working to protect any asset or resource, including people, you invest where attackers are targeting those assets first.

Most frequently focusing on improving the safety and security of the most vulnerable has a knock-on effect of dragging the level of safety up to a simple baseline.

The frustrating thing about writing an answer like this is that it's necessary because based on your comment history you aren't asking that question in good faith, but others need to respond to it because leaving garbage comments like yours unaddressed is like leaving litter in the neighbourhood park. It's not my job or responsibility to take out the trash, but I like living in a clean neighbourhood.

[aaron695]

> Sibling comment already addressed this

Both your comments are lies.

Men are 20% of human trafficking. The idea that's not a massive part of the asset is garbage.

The reason men are left out is because the UN is a political tool used to promote careers over good policy. And from your two comments it works.

The reason you would target women and children, is men are generally labour which is generally less harmful to the individual. (Ignoring the complexity of boys trafficked as soldiers)

Of course for organ transplants that makes no sense. But that's back to the bureaucrats and the commentary on OP question. People are not good. They are in this to feel good about themselves. Hence white knight the women and children.

[ygjb]

puts on sanitation engineer outfit

> Men are 20% of human trafficking. The idea that's not a massive part of the asset is garbage.

Yes, that's what I said. 20% of human trafficking is the minority. Not irrelevant, and I never said that. I said that when you want to prevent attacks you start with the asset you want to protect that is most frequently attacked.

> The reason men are left out is because the UN is a political tool used to promote careers over good policy. And from your two comments it works.

Huh? My comments have nothing to do with the UN, my comments are based on the notion that I have worked for more than 20 years in various information security roles, including government, finance, open source companies, cutting edge technology firms. Before that I was a soldier. I am very open about who I am. What expertise do you have besides shitposting on social media sites?

> The reason you would target women and children, is men are generally labour which is generally less harmful to the individual. (Ignoring the complexity of boys trafficked as soldiers)

The reason I would protect, not target women and children as a priority is because they make up the largest community of vulnerable people. As I said in my original comment, raising the standards of protection and care for vulnerable populations has the effect of raising the bar for every group of vulnerable people. Finally, trafficking in child soldiers is a different issue entirely, and is the reason that I make donations to organizations like https://dallaireinstitute.org/ What actual good work have you done in your life, by donation, or by actual work?

> Of course for organ transplants that makes no sense. But that's back to the bureaucrats and the commentary on OP question. People are not good. They are in this to feel good about themselves. Hence white knight the women and children.

No, you are not a good person, and you are projecting your awful perspectives and assumptions about people onto others actions. I have seen some shit people over my careers and generally they come in with attitudes like yours calling people liars and assuming that everyone who takes a positive position is virtue signalling or white knighting, or whatever language of the day is used to hide the fact that your cynical views of people are largely based on your own inadequacies.

Be well, and stop stinking up the neighbourhood.

[dustymcp]

Thank you neighborhood garbage man !