That's part of it, but it's still missing the issue that it's not about equal risks, it's about equal treatment. There's the catch, and while it seems obvious enough to me, it's clear from everything from this to the Rucka debacle I provoked on the old S_D that it's more subtle and pervasive than it has any right to be. If you torture the crap out of a female character, that's fine - you just damn well should be doing it the same way you torture the crap out of a male character, and for the same reason. If he's strong and defiant and she's sexy and helpless, if he breaks free on his own and she needs a rescue, if he goes down a hero and she goes down a victim, it's not equal treatment. If it's his story when he's being tortured and his story when she's being tortured, it's not equal treatment. If he bounces back heroically and she gets written out, it's not equal treatment. Equal risk is a good start, but it's only the start.
You can't take Dinah's Canary Cry away for ten~fifteen years when she gets tortured
Oh, but didn't you know? Grell never meant to imply that her Cry got taken away by the torture. He was writing realistic stories, so he simply decided she'd never had it. And hey, Hal didn't get to use his ring when he guest-starred either. So that can't possibly be sexist, right?