No, I think I’m actually countering equivocation on the word “responsibility” (which is why I’m trying to avoid using it). The “responsibility” of an attacker for their crime is an entirely different concept from the “responsibility” of a victim who chose to put themselves in a position where the crime was significantly more likely and it is using the same word to refer to both concepts that leads to this issue in the first place.
There is no logical reason why the two aspects shouldn’t be addressed entirely differently. We should be able to address rape, assault or theft as threats that exist just like environmental threats that don’t involve the actions of other people and address how we can take reasonable steps to reduce our risk of suffering from them. We’d obviously also want to address how we can prevent rape, assault and thefts happening at all but that’s really an entirely different conversation, largely with an entirely different group of people.