Then shouldn't you look at whether the act violence involves two people of criminal background instead of looking at their gender?

Just because someone is subjected to violence from someone who shares some group characteristics doesn't mean it's not worth investigating or that he or she is somehow responsible for this violence.

A similar logic could be applied to black men on black men violence, to cite other answer that you got.

To push it further I what stops us from using the same reasoning to say that it's not worth investigating domestic violence in the case of same-race couple? In the end it's just whites hurting whites.

Why does it matter who is hurting who? Just protect those who are being hurt.

In terms of evaluating police effectiveness it could matter in some cases.

For example, the police probably can't do much to protect one drug dealer from another as both drug dealers are presumably trying to avoid the police (and the decision to legalise drugs is a political one not a police one).

That's the same argument used by conservatives to discount black on black crime. If it doesn't hold water there, it doesn't hold any here.

The parent isn’t discounting male on male crime, in fact quite the opposite. He was responding to a comment about maybe men need more protection than women.

So your analogy to the police discounting black on black crime isn’t correct.

I'm not discounting male on male crime. The comment was supposed to be a confirmation of the parent's question. The other stuff came out because I learned it while reading that wiki and thought it was interesting, not because I think it's okay to ignore violence against men. (But I understand how it sounds like an implied "they deserve it" argument)

Yeah... intrinsic group characteristics are also used in many arguments you might find less righteous.