Dawkins' statement is true. The fact that you can objectively categorize certain levels of crime as worse than others does not mean you are endorsing the "less worse" crimes. Theft is bad but theft coupled with a beating is worse than theft. Does saying that mean that you endorse theft?
Of course, the telling part of the reaction is that feminists need to blur the lines on these types of categorizations to push their agenda. If an 18 year old boy has sex with an 18 year old girl who is too drunk to affirmatively consent to the sex, that has to be just as bad as the mugger who grabs a woman, pulls her into an alley and then punches her into submission and then rapes her. If you make the distinction, you may think that the 18 year old boy does not need to be punished as badly as the violent mugger. Ironically, what this shows is that the feminist is less concerned about the violent mugger because focusing on him does not advance the agenda. The real villain is the 18 year old boy who needs to be put in his place. Doing that advances feminism more than protecting women against worse, more violent crime.
Dawkins is an idiot – To question whether his skull lacks a very small brain or just a below average brain is not an endorsement of this idiot.
Would you apply that drunken beyond being responsible for actions to the 18 year old boy as well? If not, why not?