So we're still talking about the FSU thingy? Awesome. Ooo...ooo...can I try?
In purely self defense legal terms, regardless of gender, you have the right to neutralize the threat...which implies a use of force consistent with the level of threat.
For a 120 pound sorority girl, neutralizing that threat would simply entail reminding her that she is gonna ruin her $100 nail job if she continues misbehaving. OMG...let's take a selfie.
For Natasha Romanoff, you would want to start with a Barrett M82 at north of 500 meters, and even that may not be enough. And for the record, she looks about 120 pounds too.
And yes, I know that the latter is fictitious...much like the silly extreme arguments we routinely pursue here. For most reasonable people, the 200 pound athlete shouldn't beat on the 120 pound girl. For your justification you can choose "girl" or "120 pounds" and still arrive at the correct answer in most cases...because both of those imply a level of threat consistent with a measured response. Of course the problem with never hitting a girl enters in when the girl also happens to be an international assassin of considerable skill. Common sense is a good thing.
So:
1. Big people shouldn't beat on small people.
2. Women and children are generally small people, whereas men tend to be big people...so see #1 as applied to domestic abuse of all forms.
3. On rare occasions, small people are capable of maiming the crap out of big people, gender notwithstanding.
4. Common sense clearly isn't so common.
To whom much is given much is expected. If that is scholarship at a national championship school affording you a reasonable chance at the league, it is not unreasonable to expect a bit of self control and discipline...especially when dealing with a 120 pound girl not named Natasha.
tldr - I offered a non-sexist standard that gets the job done 99.9% of the time, and allowed for the exception that your momma wasn't considering when she raised you right...and she did raise you right.