The remark carries an implicit threat because the person addressed cannot know what follows it

The argument

A second argument locates the harm in the situation rather than in the words. A stranger has selected someone on the street and made it known that he is assessing their body. The person addressed does not know who he is, whether he will stop, whether ignoring him will produce abuse, whether he will follow, or whether anyone nearby would intervene. Proponents argue that this uncertainty is not an unfortunate side effect of the remark but part of what the remark does, and that it is why the experience is so poorly captured by asking whether the words themselves were offensive. This, proponents suggest, explains why accounts of the same incident diverge so sharply. The speaker knows what he intends to do next and knows that it is nothing; the person addressed has no access to that knowledge and must act on what might follow. Advice given to those on the receiving end reflects it: do not respond, do not make eye contact, keep walking, cross the road. Proponents note that nobody offers such advice about compliments, and that the existence of a standard set of avoidance tactics is evidence about what kind of encounter this is. The conclusion drawn is that the words cannot be separated from the risk they carry, because the person addressed has no way to separate them in the moment. Conduct that repeatedly obliges a stranger to assess whether they are about to be followed, and to alter their behaviour accordingly, intimidates them whatever was intended. On this account catcalling is harassment not because of the vocabulary used but because of the position it puts someone in.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Opponents answer that this treats an unknown as a threat, which makes every unsolicited approach menacing, including the ones people welcome. They note that most such remarks are called out by someone already walking past and not stopping, a poor fit for an account built on the fear of being followed, and argue that the reasoning would equally condemn a stranger asking for directions, since the person asked cannot know what comes next there either.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Intentions are unknown in every unplanned exchange between strangers, from a request for the time to a remark about the weather, so unknown intention cannot be what makes this conduct harassment. [Rejecting P2] Most such remarks come from someone already moving past, which leaves little to reckon with, so the account fits the uncommon case of a man who stops and follows rather than the ordinary one. [Rejecting P3] Imposing an unwanted assessment of risk describes ordinary public life, where strangers continually act in ways others cannot predict. The premise needs a threshold and supplies none. [Rejecting C] If words cannot be separated from the risk they carry, neither can any other unsolicited approach, and the conclusion forbids a great deal more than its proponents intend.