Cyd Zeigler's assertion that MMA fans are blood hungry neanderthals was certainly ham-fisted, but was it really that far from the truth? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe many people enjoy watching a fighter take unnecessary damage, but that doesn't mean we don't relish the violence inherent in MMA. If we didn't have this blood lust, fighters like Wanderlei Silva would not be icons of the sport, and we wouldn't become collectively moist every time someone posts a gif of Bisping or Overeem getting knocked out in brutal fashion.
I've seen people argue that knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent should be legal simply due to the fact that they haven't killed anybody yet. I've head others justify a fighter being hit in the back of the head by saying if you don't want to get punched in the back of the head, you shouldn't expose your back to your opponent. Every time there is a contentious stoppage in a title fight, people rush to their keyboard to declare that fighters should be given more opportunities to recover in title fights. Who's to say that they would have recovered? Maybe they would've just taken several more unmitigated punches. This is despite the fact that we still have a limited understanding of the role head trauma plays in MMA, or what the long term effect such strikes will eventually have on the people who received them.
That's the biggest hole I see in the logic of those who argue that Fallon Fox's unknown potential advantages could endanger the safety of her opponents. MMA fans are perfectly fine with many aspects of fighting that posses potentially unknown dangers to the fighters. Why is this particular instance the one that has people carrying the standard of fighter safety? That's the issue that concerns me.