BBC - female sex offenders report

Possibly linked to the statistics under discussion is the fact that the Prison Service has been medicalising male sex offenders, turning them into "trans sex offenders" and then releasing them early from prison.

The experiment being run by the Prison Service is where male sex offenders are given anti-androgens in an attempt to reduce re-offending. The side-effects include "feminisation" and about half then decide to "transition".

If they reoffend on release and are charged then their crimes would be recorded as "women's crimes".

Would their previous sex-offending then be re-categorised too? If "old crimes" are reclassified then that would mess up the statistics even more, ie. showing that there was an apparent under-reporting of women's sex crimes in the past - since maybe 2007??

Archived Jenny Rossity Twitter thread about anti-androgens for sex-offenders experiment in UK Prisons:

archive.md/3T3TF

Tweets by @ jennyrossity 27 Nov 2018

Earlier Peter Tatchell disingenuously defended women’s rights by telling us we’re wrong to fear transwomen. In general I agree, but we should be afraid that in a cohort of 120 sex offenders given anti-androgens in prison almost half then decided to transition.

And we should be extremely worried that in order to ease prison over-crowding the government has suggested widening that cohort to 1,500 sex offenders in order to release them. Source:
www.express.co.uk/news/politics/944275/sexual-offender-chemical-castration-ministry-justice-worboys

A side effect of anti-androgens is that they cause those taking them to grow breasts. We have treated sex offenders with anti-androgens since 2007:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

(@ thefishgod Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Let me get this right: the government are creating trans prisoners?)

Then these sex offenders gets an idea to exploit hard won trans rights to get themselves transferred to a women’s prison and access victims more easily. In evidence to Parliament GIDs say they cannot cope with the sheer amount of referrals from prison:
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.html

I discovered this because I looked at the case of trans sex offenders Jacinta Brooks and Carrie Cooper and thought: these are not my nice trans friends. This is something else entirely. They both had previous for paedophilia and so I looked into how sex offenders were treated.

The harm this cohort of violent sex offenders could cause to women and girls and also to the trans community should not be underestimated. Surgeons do not want to transition these patients. They see it as conflicting with their duty to do no harm.

From GIDs "Another persistent source of difficulty is NHS rules require patient files to be kept for at least 30 years whilst the GRA requires us to destroy any records which link the patient’s old identity with the new identity. It's unclear which legislation takes precedence."

I wish this weren’t true, but it is & it’s up to the decent trans community & women to stand together & oppose it, not bury our heads in the sand & pretend it’s not happening. Stonewall want acceptance without exception. I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t take exception to this.

This is a national scandal on a par with the PIE scandal.

We know 120 prisoners have been given anti-androgens across 6 sex offender specific prisons. Data from 4 revealed that of that cohort 34 have now transitioned:
www.pressreader.com/uk/the-mail-on-sunday/20180603/281728385203217

Yes. The anti-androgens help them treat the compulsive behaviour that then allows for meaningful psychiatric interventions. I doubt it was their intention but it is often the end result.

(@ SalwayBrewer Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Is that history destruction required by the GRA correct? No offence meant.)

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
What I have found is that the prison service will log a new and old name together so it is recorded somewhere. Who has access to that info I don’t know. I am assuming it’s on the criminal record fullstop so hopefully there would still be a way to connect past and future crimes.

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
I don’t know whether GIDs are correct about that NHS record destruction they would know more than me about that and I haven’t double checked that. Pls feel free to though. I don’t mind at all.

(@ sarahstuartxx Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
There is no proof, as I understand it, that this treatment stops offending behaviour. )

Replying to @ sarahstuartxx
Correct. ESP as it relies on self medication. There is evidence they flog it on the dark web to earn money.

(@ PocketHanky Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
This is a very interesting thread, but are you sure about this bit? I thought the anti-androgens stopped the production of testosterone, but it was the oestrogen that caused the breast growth)

Replying to @ PocketHanky
See marked section:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

(Jenny was banned from Twitter due to sharing that sort of info!)

That Twitter thread was previously posted on Mumsnet here:
Prisoner denied GRS - court case
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3755910-Prisoner-denied-GRS-court-case?msgid=92111284

It makes my head explode again to realise just how far back this goes and how much deliberate intention there has been to bring about radical and far-reaching changes in society without the general public being in the slightest bit aware of it.

We need accurate recording because a massive rise in female offenders needs to be studied and understood in order to tackle the problem, sex offender programmes in prison needs to be tailored accordingly and risk of reoffending properly understood for adequate parole purposes.

Yes indeed, PlantMam. And there’s another angle. You’ve reminded me of a case a couple of years ago of a male sex offender who identified as a woman, where the judge said something along the lines of it being difficult to sentence this individual because of the lack of rehabilitation programmes for “female” sex offenders.

It was staggering. Here was a male person, raised male, offending in a typically male pattern way - but the judge was so woke (or well “trained”) he believed that this male person couldn’t be served by the existing programmes for other male sex offenders because of the magical transformation that had happened once this person had uttered the words “I identify as a woman”.

(With hindsight, I believe those programmes have been shown to be not fit for purpose, in fact to actually increase the likelihood of those who take part in them re-offending, but that’s another thread.)

My head nearly exploded at that one. It begs the question: what does “living as a woman” even mean, especially when the individual in question does everything they used to do when “living as a man” but wearing dresses and lipstick and being called by a woman’s name.

Sorry, that’s a bit OT, but it does bring up another question - suppose there were new sex offender rehabilitation programmes that were tailored to the different profile of the actually female offenders, how much use would they be if they were then thrown open to those male sex offenders who identify as female, even though their offending pattern was typically male? Which is surely what would happen.

Women’s needs would be sidelined, and the funding for such a programme redistributed to benefit male people who identify as women once again, just like the repurposing of that unit for teenage girls at Downview Prison for biologically male trans prisoners.

[quote GodOfPhwoar]I believe it's also a big problem in America.

Female-perpetrated sexual abuse of inmates is a particularly large problem in juvenile detention centers, where 90% of victims of staff abuse say a female correctional officer was the perpetrator.[10]

Prison rape in the United States
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States[/quote]
Going back to my above comment, it would be interesting to know whether the US also class TW as women as this would give some clarity.

90% of perpetrators abusing juvenile delinquents is a shocking figure!

Not only does this artificially inflate figures of women committing these crimes, it is also incredibly likely that it is obscuring the offending profile for women as we know that the male profile tends to be very different.

So we're not protecting children from men claiming to be women, and we're making it harder to identify interventions which could protect them from female sexual offenders.

*For a female to be guilty of rape there must by necessity also be another male person who is the actual rapist. It ought to be a separate offence in my opinion, like 'incitement to cause rape' but it isn't.

However this is rare. Of 382 'female' rapists convicted I would expect almost none to be truly female and almost all to actually be male.*

I can find only two reports covering convictions in such cases - in 2001 & 2011

I hadn't realised the police were doing this before the Equality Act.

Absolutely staggering.

I believe the usual culprits such as GIRES were performing their institutional capture by 'getting ahead of the law'.

2009 was prior to the Equality Act and therefore only the architects and lobbyists of legal change had any inkling that there would be the concept of 'self-declaration' soon. In 2009 the GRA was all that existed and that was on the basis of you are either legally 'female' or you are not. So introducing this sweeping change of criminal self-declaration before such a law even existed is astonishing, really.

But then, GIRES were institutionally capturing the NHS with exactly the same principle in 2009 too. It's written into 2009 NHS policies.

They were busily 'getting ahead of the law' a lot.

Met Police FOI from 2016:
Rapists recorded by self-declared gender since 2009.

Actual females convicted of rape are guilty of an "inchoate" offence ie: still guilty of rape despite not actually raping anyone themselves (but by inciting the true rapist). For a female to be guilty of rape there must by necessity also be another male person who is the actual rapist. It ought to be a separate offence in my opinion, like 'incitement to cause rape' but it isn't.

However this is rare. Of 382 'female' rapists convicted I would expect almost none to be truly female and almost all to actually be male.

I presume it would be different to the actual rapist (which is 19c)?

I don't think so - the crime itself is 19C. So they would be an accomplice to that crime. Not sure conviction stats would distinguish accomplices generally.

all charitability is rescinded.

Indeed. This is clearly an active campaign to try to blur the data to conceal the sex of offenders, which is clearly only in the interests of those who find it inconvenient that the vast majority are male. Any blurring can only make males look better.

And it's worse than that - like in many other cases - they're not honestly just "not recording" the sex, they're pretending to record the sex and then use those falsified numbers to justify whatever they want.

Thanks for that NecessaryScene - I find the ONS stuff near impossible to read on my iPad.

I did find this, re: cases that reach magistrates stage. It separates rape from assault by penetration:

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fcrimeandjustice%2fdatasets%2fsexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables%2fcurrent/sexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables.xlsx

And this recent guidance that confirms women (of the old-fashioned no-penis variety) can only be charged with rape as an accomplice - I can’t seem to find what code that would be charged under, but I presume it would be different to the actual rapist (which is 19c)?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences

I agree with previous posters that all sexual offences need to be dealt with seriously, including those committed by female people.

We need accurate recording because a massive rise in female offenders needs to be studied and understood in order to tackle the problem, sex offender programmes in prison needs to be tailored accordingly and risk of reoffending properly understood for adequate parole purposes.

Anyone who campaigns for inaccuracy in recording this data (ie recording internal gender identity rather than natal sex) is putting more people, including children, at greater risk of harm.
I can be charitable give the benefit of doubt and assume that gender campaigners hadn’t realised this, but once it’s been pointed out and they persist, all charitability is rescinded.

That’s it.

Thank you for breaking down that data, NecessaryScene, very much appreciated.

Great posts.

Ken MacQuarrie, former head of BBC nations and regions, has been given a new job "executive sponsor safeguarding impartiality". I'd suggest that Fair Play for Women, the good Baroness and others do a wide ranging report to him on the problems the BBC has had covering this issue across all output and this article/File of Four should be included. He seems empowered and best placed to deal with it across the whole of the BBC.

TRAs will kick up a huge fuss if that data is gathered by sex again. Can't have the narrative that TW are sweet and fragrant derailed by reality. Imagine the horror if they retained the same criminality as males.

JJ et al may be right. The problem is there is no way of knowing. And we need to know so the issue can be addressed. Not correctly and unambiguously recording the sex of the perpetrator is just stupid.

The problem here is truth. Until a few years ago if the police produced statistics about women/females who had committed a crime we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

If the BBC spoke about women or females we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

We can no longer trust those statistics.

That's it.

Winding back a bit to the OP, having dissected jj1968's objection.

In 2018-19, 3.8% of all child sexual abusers were female, based on police reports, Office of National Statistics data shows

How do we know the sex - we don’t. As far as I can see - this is increased from previous stats - ONS figures show in 2015 only 1.34% of prisoners sentenced for child sexual abuse as the first main offence were women. The BBCs stats double this.

The two numbers do not appear to be comparable. 1.34% are convictions, the 3.8% seems to be crime survey, and isn't "percentage of offenders" it's "percentage of people who said they'd suffered any sexual abuse (including non-contact abuse) before the age of 16 where 1 or more perpetrators were female and none were male". There was also 4.5% for "both male and female perpetrators".

And it's clear that the survey data can't be based on self-ID.

There clearly is something interesting in the stats, and the gap between the survey data and the conviction data.

However the gripe "Is there anything that people won't turn into a trans debate?" is daft. If the police are, as they appear to be, saying that 382 "women" committed crimes of code 19 ("rape = penetration with a penis"), it's not unreasonable to point out the trans issue here.

jj1968 is being economical with the actualité again.

The linked spreadsheet does appear to be what the programme is based on, and is split into crime survey, police, and other data.

That document does indeed group together "rape or assault by penetration" in all the crime survey data in tables 1-31.

The crime survey only record "sexes" of those performing the abuse in one table - table 13. There I see a "3.8%" under "sex of perpetrator(s) = female" for "any sexual abuse experienced before the age of 16", but that's not quite the same thing as "3.8% of perpetrators are female" stated in the OP. The same column has "male = 91.7%" and "both male and female = 4.5%". And the data is from the ONS crime survey, not the police.

(It's worth noting that 78% of the victims responding to the survey are women while we're here...)

Like other crime survey tables, that table groups together "rape or assault by penetration". So we see "rape or assault by penetration (including attempts)" = 565, with 95.7% male, 1.7% female, 2.6% both.

However jj1968's statement "The category Rape refers to rape or assault by penetration" is not supported in any way by the screenshot or anything I can find in the document. The survey section always uses "rape or assault by penetration" and never shortens that combo to just "rape".

The police stats in 32-37 do break out just "Rape", and a bit of research suggests they really do mean "rape" in the legal definition "with a penis". They're showing offense codes like 19C ("rape of a female aged 16 or over") and 20A ("sexual assault on a female aged 13 and over").

This document confirms that 19C is used for penises and 20A otherwise in these examples:

Where woman believes that they have been penetrated but is unsure with what, there is a presumption that it will be with a penis unless there is clear evidence that this is not the case.

4: A woman makes a complaint that she has been date raped. She believes that her vagina has been penetrated but she can not provide any further details surrounding the assault. / One crime (class 19C). / Following investigation into the offence it is established that a physical object was used and there was no penile penetration. / The FCR can reclassify the recorded rape to one crime (class 20A) (assault by penetration).

5: A woman is accosted at a party and pushed onto a bed by a suspect. Her trousers are removed and she feels her anus being penetrated. She pushes the suspect off her and discovers that the suspect is a female. / One crime (class 20A) (assault by penetration).

The spreadsheet linked by jj1968 does not have any police data on sex, but we can safely conclude that the 19,481 rapes (of 15,779 females and 3,702 males) were by men, based on the codes.

The "382 rapes by women" number elsewhere in this thread does not come from that spreadsheet, but I gather from police reports.

Until we see otherwise it seems reasonable to assume that the police mean "penis" whenever they say "rape" in their stats. Assault by penetration comes under a different general "sexual assault" code for them, even if judges' sentencing guidelines treat them the same. It's not clear that the police could easily separate out "assault by penetration" from other "sexual assault" for stats even if they wanted to if they're coded the same.

I was prepared to give jj1968 the benefit of the doubt, so dug into it, but I am disappointed again.

I believe it's also a big problem in America.

Female-perpetrated sexual abuse of inmates is a particularly large problem in juvenile detention centers, where 90% of victims of staff abuse say a female correctional officer was the perpetrator.[10]

Prison rape in the United States
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

Now for something where it is vital for future safeguarding requirements, it is imperative that sex based crime recording is brought back.

Considering how many reports of csa offenses (eg. Images etc) of males who have identified as women in the media over the past year, I do believe that these statistics should be validated by sex.