>Suppose we're flipping a fair coin. We should expect to see roughly equal numbers of heads and tails. If I flip the same coin a thousand times and see 523 heads, that seems "reasonable". It's certainly possible to get 873 heads, but I might start to wonder if the coin is really fair not because it's very unlikely to get 873 heads with a fair coin (and it is very unlikely) but because it's more plausible that the coin is biased.
The first sentence said the coin was fair. Given that the coin is fair, flipping 873 heads in a thousand tosses is perfectly fine, it just has a smaller probability than flipping 523 heads (as you have already clearly stated).
Believing that the coin is biased is nothing more than human scepticism because we were told the coin was fair. Given that the coin is biased, you are right to state that the probability is higher. Probability is about working with given information, not about being suspicious about given information. If you had a reason to believe the coin wasn't fair, it being fair would not be part of the information given. The point I'm making here is that it is easy to mislead someone. You told me the coin was fair. If you then cheat and flip a biased coin there is no way for me tell if the coin is biased because it is my belief the coin is fair.
Prior information doesn't change after you look at the data. The distribution taking into account observations is different, and it is called the posterior distribution.
You have essentially taken my statement:
What you're describing is a rare event. Rare events happen, just rarely.
and repeated exactly my argument back to me.
Given that the hurricane gender is assigned uniformly at random, it is fine to observe that female hurricanes are more deadly. Quite a bit more deadly is nothing more than random chance. Remember, the prior was that they were assigned uniformly at random.
It could be the case that people assign names to hurricanes based on behaviour, path, time of year, or whatever other characteristic you like (and perhaps this is done subconsciously). In this case, the prior belief is that they are no longer assigned uniformly at random, but a human assigns them genders correlated with some physical quantity. Now, is it surprising that female hurricanes are more deadly? Perhaps not.