BBC - female sex offenders report

With the police? The ONS?

Just saw this from AntiAnja on Twitter, via Helen Joyce:

Norway:
2015: 12 women reported for rape/sexual assault.
2016: Self ID
2017: 41 women reported for rape/sexual assault. [and 1670 men]

And there is no way of tracking.

You can't track, but you can check whether 12->41 being self-ID is plausible. Her screenshot doesn't include the men in 2015, but let's guess the offences is the same. In which case we'd expect 12 women, but maybe there are now 29 self-ID'd "women".

That would require 29 out of 1699 males to self-ID as female, or 1.7% of the male sex offender population.

So what's more likely? 1.7% of male sex offenders choosing female ID when offered (with what benefits?), or female offending tripling?

Bingo! Mermaids sticky fingers again.

Just a hunch, but the person providing a quote within this - and the org they work for - might be quite comfortable when it comes to conflating sex and gender. www.survivorsuk.org/about-us/meet-the-team/ .

Have a look at that and Mermaids trustees:

mermaidsuk.org.uk/staff-and-trustees/

Is there anything at all that can be done about this?

Judicial review/legal action? We need to know accurate stats. They're now completely meaningless because 'female' and 'woman' means everyone.

It's a sort of daft construction I see repeated a lot. The statement "A lot more X than you think do Y" somehow being used to justify the statement "X do Y just as much as everyone else".

(And often the "more than you think" bit is responding to a straw-man characterisation few would believe anyway).

Same basic thing as "more people than you think are 'intersex'" (via dodgy stats) -> "no-one is unambiguously male or female".

In both cases the first statement, aside from being dubious, does not in any way lead to the second, but they're put together as if they do.

I suppose that's what James Lindsay means by "paralogic" in his stuff about pseudo-reality.

interviewee was all on about "we have to dispel the misconception that its majority of males abusing children, and that women are normally safer people to be around, because as these figures from 2015-2019 prove, it's not

That’s terrible! Even with that supposed increase, it is still me that commit the vast majority of those crimes!!

I've submitted a complaint about the article. I suggest others do too. Only takes 5 minutes.

*whole

NecessaryScene1

That's just it. The while interview was trying to make out that females are actually just as bad as males.

Its been discussed on here many time about the end goal of changing language and statistics.

it was like watching 1984 play out for real, watching that interview.

Your initial disquiet appears to be appropriate OP. Here's a thread from other disbelievers: twitter.com/anyabike/status/1351417965321850882

the misconception that ... women are normally safer people to be around, because as these figures from 2015-2019 prove, it's not

Even ignoring everything else, taking the figures at face value, if 4% of abusers are "female" and 96% "male" then it remains true that "women" are normally safer to be around.

Now, it's possible that a certain identifiable subset of those "women" might be an exception to the "normally". Maybe look into that?

Just a hunch, but the person providing a quote within this - and the org they work for - might be quite comfortable when it comes to conflating sex and gender. www.survivorsuk.org/about-us/meet-the-team/

I've just watched an interview on bbc news about this, it.was.awful

Interviewee was all on about "we have to dispel the misconception that its majority of males abusing children, and that women are normally safer people to be around, because as these figures from 2015-2019 prove, it's not"

no questioning as why there was an 84% jump! in any other situation jumps like that would definitely raise suspicion that somethings going on!

Grooming puts you on the sex offenders register. It is not clear from media reports whether grooming was counted in that report. I agree Ghislane Maxwell has not been convicted.

One of the biggest problems facing the Police is maintaining the trust of the public. Surely there are people in the Police who can see that they are corrupting a set of their crime statistics and this will undermine the trust the public. After all, a bunch of mere women who are not involved in the Police or the criminal justice system can see this clear as day.

Assuming that this is known in the Police, and they're willing to pay the cost of losing the trust on the public to some degree, then the grip of the institutional capture must be incredibly strong.

The saying lies, damn lies and statistics gets even worse when you can no longer trust the meaning of the words used.

How many of the victims of those "female" sexual offenders are being gaslit into talking about their abusers using preferred pronouns I wonder?

It’s this smug little line that gets me

based on police reports

they know full well that police reports based on sex are totally untrustworthy because police have allowed self id of sex for 10 years so I don’t believe that jump is actual females for one second. Have they even considered the similar situation in Norway where ‘female’ sex offences have leapt by 4000% (or thereabouts) since self id?

I am beyond hacked off with the BBC. And they can hide behind their smug little line of ‘well that’s what the police reports say...’

It also has the opposite effect to taking it seriously. My default position now when I hear about a female sex offender is to assume it's actually a male person unless there's obvious evidence to the contrary. Eventually that will be the position most people take which does nothing to help in the understanding of female sex offending or offer any comfort to their victims.

This is covered by File on 4 tonight:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcq5

The bottom line is we can't ever have any confidence in data like this again unless someone puts a stop to inaccurate, politically based recording.

Even if they stopped it tomorrow it could take years to start getting reliable data again unless a mammoth effort was embarked on to comb back through years of data since this nonsense began.

Quite possibly, allmy. The figures I was thinking of were the ones from Fair Play for Women who were deliberately extremely conservative in their methodology so they couldn't be accused of scare-mongering/have their figures disputed. Even the BBC, when they fact-checked FPW's report (reluctantly, and with obvious disappointment at discovering this) said that FPW's estimates were probably an underestimate.

I forget the exact figures but the ratio of "women sex offenders" held in the female estate to "women sex offenders" (self-identifying) held in the male estate is about 3:2, IIRC. And women (held in the female estate) comprise somewhere between 1 and 2% of the total of incarcerated sex offenders.

I recall there being a lot more "women sex offenders" who are male than "women sex offenders" who are female. Although I think the numbers depend on whether they've just declared their womanhood on
a survey, or in a case review.

In the latest "Mess We're In" with Glinner et al, the guest from Ireland was saying that their number of "female" sex offenders in custody (IIRC) had recently doubled - going from 1 to 2, with the new one being male.

On current trends, very soon if not already, the majority of offenders in such categories described as "female" will be male.

It's conditional probability maths - if X% of sex offenders are male, and Y% of male sex offenders call themselves female, what's the probability that a "female" sex offender is male? Answer is xy/(xy+1-x), ignoring tiny possible effect of female sex offenders calling themselves male.

Plugging in the numbers, assuming 99% male offenders:

If 0.1% of males say they're female, 9% of "females" will be male.

If 0.5% of males say they're female, 33% of "females" will be male.

If 1% of males say they're female, 50% of "females" will be male.

Given the apparent incentives for more lenient sentencing (see Glinner's substack), reaching 1% for female self-ID does not seem implausible, and then half your women are men.